Evidence: The Gathering

[abaris]

Have you ever read a book on the Shroud of Turin?

If so, what was the title?

Youe mean "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin"? No, I haven't, since anything saying "the truth" about an as of yet scientifically disputed item, desn't warrant too much attention. I guess, you don't give all the "truth about Jack the Ripper" books the same kind of credit. Apart from the fact that Wilcox is a journalist and not a scientist.

I go with real findings and the jury is still very much out on that, not with sensationalism created by some hack.

[Esquilax]

That was a lot of typing in order to say nothing.

That's a consequence of what I was replying to, Randy. An argument from ignorance isn't exactly effusive with talking points to address.

Objectively speaking, the Shroud of Turin cannot be proved to be the burial cloth of Jesus, can it?

We both know and agree on this. Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it. MOST crucified people were not scourged first. MOST crucified people did not have a lance wound in their side. AND to hear you boys tell the tale, MOST crucified people weren't even buried at all...they were left to rot on the cross or thrown into a shallow grave.

So, that makes this shroud kinda unique, doesn't it?

Are you asserting that the only possible origin for the shroud is that a person literally died in the exact way that you happen to interpret the markings on it? No other possible ways it could be made, other than that the figure on the cloth was a real person, who died in the exact way the bible describes the crucifixion?

Oh, and all that pollen and stuff that has been documented from the shroud...you know the stuff that only grows in a tiny region of ISRAEL...wow, what a coincidence that the forger was smart enough to TAKE his canvas to Palestine first...just so he could contaminate it with pollen spores native to NOT EUROPE.

So the only forgers in existence come from Europe?

But hey, I say it's probable; you say it's not. I say it's another clue that leads some to faith; you say no way.

Whatever.

Man, if your only response is to propose an unreasonably strict set of criteria regarding the provenance of the shroud and then insist that they are the only possible ways the shroud could have come into existence, then of course you're gonna be this blase over it; the alternative is recognizing that the possibility space is wider than the self-serving assumptions you're making here. If we've got little information, which is about the best you could say regarding what you're presented, then there's no reason to make any of the leaps you're making, and every reason to discard the shroud as denoting anything at all until its origins can be made clear.

Meanwhile, the boys in the lab are coming to the conclusion that there is nothing else like this piece of cloth known to man.

According to you the boys in the lab are only able to get inconclusive results, that you then spin into confirmation of your own beliefs somehow. Gonna need a citation for your claim here; doesn't sound like any scientist I've ever read about.

[IATIA]

The shroud of Turin is not a burial shroud for anybody. You do not need carbon dating, or chemical analysis or anything else to see that the dimensions are absolutely incompatible with any known human body. Take any person, mannequin or whatever and wrap it with the shroud and the eyes will not line up, the front and back of the head will not line up. Not even close. (unless the head is flat.) It is a painting by some clever artist.

[robvalue]

Is not.

[pocaracas]

Leonardo da Vinci would have done a much better job... is all.

[Homeless Nutter]

Shroud of Turin - because if you're a Catholic, it's not enough to worship god, his offspring, his baby-mama, his holy spirit, angels, 1000s of saints and martyrs and the f-ing pope.
You also need to pray to a rag...

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/21...-of-turin/

[Cyberman]

Why not? They already worship a book.

[brewer]

I don't like getting involved in Randy's threads but I started reading the posts back to front. Haven't had that good of a laugh in quite awhile. Thanks.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't like getting involved in Randy's threads but I started reading the posts back to front. Haven't had that good of a laugh in quite awhile. Thanks.

The sad thing is it doesn't matter what order you read them.  Page 1 and page 100 are virtually identical.  The argument never moves anywhere.  It's just one long chain of assertions that no one buys, followed by precisely the same assertions as though doubling down on stupid will convince anyone.

[Rhondazvous]

You've put together an impressive list of arguments. The problem is arguments can not prove the existence of god. If god existed, you wouldn't even have to prove his existence. His empirical, in-your-face, up close and personal presence would be its own proof.

If I were all powerful and wanted my existence known, you would know it because I would be there, and not just in some people's hearts. I would BE there.

It's because your god is not here that you have to come up with all these arguments.