(July 20, 2015 at 4:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: Didn't he admit in another thread that there is no actual evidence?

That's a good starting point. The question would be, how many other things does he believe in based on no evidence?

Why would anyone believe anything based on no evidence?

After ~100 pages, yes.

And people believe in all sorts of shit that makes them feel good.  Bonus points if it allows them to rationalize away bad behavior.  Human history and psychology shows that we'd usually rather believe in a comforting lie than a hard truth.  Not all of us, but a significant portion of us.  Now, with that said, add in tribalism.  Voila.

(July 20, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 12:35 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: No one who actually understands the arguments Aquinas of this forum so its not surprising that they reflexively belief Wikipedia entries that have been edited by equally ignorant militant skeptics.

Good show, Randy.

I'm a seminary mdiv graduate who teaches thomastic theology to undergrad students. That's right, I'm just as qualified as your parish priest and were I a thiest I would have been ordained one.

You want to talk about Aquinas? Come on then, wow me with you arcane wisdom that during several years of theological study I couldn't uncover for myself. I hope you know your Church fathers well though because Ido.

Wonderful! Then we should engage in a formal debate within the Debate Area subforum. Due the complexities I suggest that we focus primarily on Aquinas's First Way before tackling the other four.

Since some have made comments, I'm...



In 1988, a scrap of linen was clipped from the shroud and sent to laboratories in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Zurich to be dated using the carbon-14 technique. For the first time, the scientific tests invalidated claims of the shroud’s authenticity. The tests dated the shroud between 1260 and 1390. This fit perfectly with the first documented appearance of the shroud in Lirey, France, in 1353.

Despite the other encouraging evidence, the carbon-14 dating seemed to be conclusive proof that the ancient linen cloth was an ingenious medieval forgery.

However, the mystery of the shroud was not to be solved quite so easily. Further research uncovered a painting that portrayed the shroud, which predated both the documented exhibition in Lirey and the carbon-14 results. Shroud believers suggested that the fire that nearly destroyed the shroud in 1532 could have affected the carbon-14 dating, and closer examination revealed that the area from which the linen was taken for testing was not only the area handled by those displaying the shroud over the centuries, but it had been repaired by almost invisible interweaving in the 14th century.

(IOW, the 1988 test was flawed and invalid.)

Suddenly, the carbon-14 dating did not seem so watertight. Then, in 2012, an Italian academic who had been studying the mystery of the shroud for years released what seems to be the best theory to explain the shroud’s image. Giulio Fanti, an Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, reports that the only technique to come close to reproducing the image on the shroud is ultraviolet radiation. However, it required 500,000 volts to produce a replica only a few centimeters long. Fanti calculates that to produce an instant image the size of the shroud would require tens of millions of volts — something which is impossible to produce through natural methods.

(IOW, science cannot explain how the Shroud was created by natural means.)

The irony of the Shroud of Turin’s long history is that it was only in a skeptical, scientific age that the scientific technology has been available to test the shroud — and the more the shroud is investigated, the more the evidence accumulates for its authenticity.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the...z3gTBe2RUw

I like the Orthodox icons that have pictures matching the Shroud.

Randy, do you honestly think that a painting containing A shroud- that you preume based on nothing to be THE shroud- some data that suggests that the C14 dating MIGHT be off- that you presume to be so based on nothing- and an argument from ignorance- "science can't explain this!"- are evidence at all for the shroud's authenticity, sufficient to believe that? Really?

(July 20, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Pizza Wrote: Is it just me or are all of Randy's threads bleeding together? I'm confused as to which is which.

RANDY'S THREADS: A USER'S GUIDE

I have four major threads which are currently active. The first three are closely related:

1. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

I discontinued posting in that thread in order to focus more narrowly on:

2. Proving the Resurrection by the Minimal Facts Approach

Then in order to demonstrate that the charge of "NO EVIDENCE" is silly, I created:

3. Evidence: The Gathering

To simply pile it up so that it cannot be overlooked. Finally, to be even-handed (as well as to draw out additional objections), I started:

4. Objections: The Gathering

Finally, I also have a thread for those who wish to ask questions about Catholicism:

5. Ask a Catholic

Hope this helps.

Anybody else find it ironic how much scientific effort is used in order to prove a myth?

(July 20, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Beccs Wrote: It is the time for the gathering?

About fucking time.  Lets see Chad go toe to toe with this guy using broad swords and whatever debate rules Chad wants.

(July 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Spooky Wrote: Anybody else find it ironic how much scientific effort is used in order to prove a myth?

Yes, I do. We could run a book on how far into it they can get before they have to invoke magic. I think three sentences is the furthest on record.

(July 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Randy, do you honestly think that a painting containing A shroud- that you preume based on nothing to be THE shroud- some data that suggests that the C14 dating MIGHT be off- that you presume to be so based on nothing- and an argument from ignorance- "science can't explain this!"- are evidence at all for the shroud's authenticity, sufficient to believe that? Really?

No, dude. The fact that there is a painting of the shroud that is older than the flawed C-14 dating suggests for the age of the shroud is an inconvenient fact that you cannot explain.

What I'm hanging MY hat on is that science has looked at this piece of linen again and again and again...and still has no explanation for how a 3-D image was created on it. Oh, but "science of the gaps": "We will figure it out eventually."

Maybe so...but till then...there is this enigmatic image on a cloth indicating wounds that bear a striking resemblance to the description of the events of Jesus' scourging and death. Either it is the real deal or an amazing icon that testifies to the extraordinary faith of the artist who chose to express his faith in God by creating it.

That's a win for believers either way.