Steefen, you trying to pick a fight?
Turek understands neither the Big Bang Theory nor the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lennox is more disappointing because he should know better. Do you grasp how tedious it is to repeatedly hear these same misunderstandings offered because they seem to superficially support some sort of Theism? Do you understand how tedious it is to spend all our time having to correct other people’s ignorance?
I’m not a teacher. Educate yourself.
But that said I will be happy to debate the issue IF AND ONLY IF THE THEIST WILL DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN FOR THE REASONS THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO BELIEVE. (Sorry to shout but it often takes a bit to get through.)
These “arguments” for the existence of God are secondary rationalizations for views that were already arrived at for other reasons.
Can we be honest?
The opening of Lennox’s talk at the Union is–in my judgement–a very very good and very concise presentation of the strongest reasons for taking theism (by which I just mean, acceptance of some sort of God, not necessarily the God of Christianity) seriously. If there are really good replies to those early arguments, I’d like to hear them because they do still give me serious pause. That said, he does go off the rails as he goes on.
I will be happy to debate the issue IF AND ONLY IF THE THEIST WILL DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN FOR THE REASONS THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO BELIEVE. (Sorry to shout but it often takes a bit to get through.) These “arguments” for the existence of God are secondary rationalizations for views that were already arrived at for other reasons.
I think yours is an accurate assessment of very many theists. But there are theists who really do seem to accept some God because of the force of philosophical arguments. Cf. Anthony Flew, the famous atheist philosopher who became a deist near the end of his life explicitly because he was convinced by philosophical arguments.
I have disavowed the religion I grew up with (and all religion for that matter), and while I won’t identify as a theist, I do still take some philosophical arguments for a God very seriously and really don’t know what to make of them.
Ok, Lennox then.
Modern skeptical thinkers are not asking for people to choose between “God” and “science”. They are pointing out contradictions between the conclusions drawn by scientific inquiry and claims made by theists.
For example, Paul clearly believed that Adam was a real human being. Because of the First Adam’s sin, death came into the world. Because of the Second Adam, redemption is possible. The results of scientific inquiry reveal that death is inherent in an evolutionary system right from the beginning. Not a bug but a feature. Consequently, Paul’s entire argument in Romans falls apart. (To anticipate the inevitable objection, Paul made no distinction between “physical” death and “spiritual” death.)
Sure, “God” is an answer but is it the right answer? Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that the question isn’t simply meaningless in the first place, “God” as an answer has no explanatory power. What a scientist wants to know are the actual processes involved. We don’t know. Perhaps we never will. “God” as an explanation, little more than a placeholder for a lack of imagination, simply shuts down the inquiry.
The concept of “Nothing” means something different to an astrophysicist than it does colloquially. It does not mean the simple lack of anything whatsoever. That state is probably impossible given what we observe in the quantum realm. How is it that I as a non-specialist can understand this idea through curiosity and reading and a mathematician like Lennox cannot?
He obviously doesn’t understand the very real issues with the concept of “Fine Tuning”. All it takes is a little reading!
But after all that he winds up with the general all-purpose theism of the philosophers. Somebody tell me why they believe in Yahweh and Jesus and how they arrived at that belief? Now there’s a real conversation to be had.
OK, let’s do this:
Modern skeptical thinkers are not asking for people to choose between “God” and “science”. They are pointing out contradictions between the conclusions drawn by scientific inquiry and claims made by theists.
I don’t want to get hung up on this specific point. I grant the point you are making, but I think the point Lennox opens with is simply a casual phrasing of the effective upshot: If you allege that there is a contradiction between accepting God and accepting the results of science the net-net is that you are asking people to choose between God and science; you are insisting the two stand in opposition. The theist (assuming a philosophically serious theist) responds that there are similarly scientific reasons (“scientific” in the sense of rational reasons grounded in evidence) for thinking there actually is a God, and further, that denying God ultimately upends the whole enterprise of science.
Paul clearly believed that Adam was a real human being. Because of the First Adam’s sin, death came into the world. Because of the Second Adam, redemption is possible. The results of scientific inquiry reveal that death is inherent in an evolutionary system right from the beginning. Not a bug but a feature.
I’m not going to argue that Christianity or Christian revelation is defensible in the face of science. I’m only interested in the existence of God. Lennox ends up linking them, but it’s only the first part of his presentation that I will defend. The rest is rubbish as far as I am concerned.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that the question isn’t simply meaningless in the first place, “God” as an answer has no explanatory power.
I think this question is serious and deserves to be taken seriously, even thought it is comically simple on the face.
The whole scientific enterprise is tied up in searching for explanations of why things are what they are and why they behave as they behave. Scientists don’t just describe the world–what is and how it behaves–, they don’t just catalog reality; they ask for ever deeper explanations of why things are the way they are and why they behave as they behave.
When we engage in science we are asking for explanations of phenomena. And as we continue science, we ask for more and more basic explanations that simultaneously explain more and more of reality.
Let me illustrate:
Why is this wall red?
Because it was painted with red paint.
Why is the paint red?
Because it contains iron oxide, which absorbs all wavelengths of visible light except those between 620 to 750 nano meters, which it reflects.
Why does iron oxide only reflect wavelengths of visible light between 620 and 750 nm?
At which point I teach you a course on quantum field theory.
And then you come back with some new question about quantum fields.
Every answer occasions a new question. And as you move down the line of explanations, you find you are giving more and more universal explanations: you are investigating the explanations that account for ever more phenomena.
Now if you turn to the basic question, why is there anything at all, you really have two basic options:
One option, is that you can say say the question is a meaningful question that has a coherent answer, in which you can you must say there is a “necessary being”–there is one or more things that doesn’t cause itself (as that would be circular) but that in some sense explains itself. In other words, that thing (whatever it is) *must* be, it can’t not be because, if it were otherwise than it is, there would be some fundamental incoherence involved, some strict logical contradiction would be entailed in trying to imagine a possible world that doesn’t include that thing.
The other option is the one espoused by Russell in his BBC debate with Copleston, and what you seem to be espousing here: you just can’t ask the question, the fact there is anything is gratuitous. Things could be or they could just as well not be and nothing accounts for them being one way or the other; it might act the way it does act or it might act otherwise, but there is no explanation for why it is, or why it is as it is, or why it acts as it does act. It is just meaningless to ask for any explanation. Scientific inquiry can go on searching for deeper and deeper explanations until we get to that thing, and at that point we just have to stop, not simply because we can’t know enough to keep investigating, and not because that thing simply can’t not be, but because we just run out of explanations to investigate, *even though the things were are left with could perfectly well have been otherwise*.
If you take that last option–and say the world is at route gratuitous–it seems to me you have decided science is a dead end. The world is radically absurd and unintelligible.
Whatever the total amount of matter in the universe, is possible there could have been some other quantity, or is it arbitrary? If it is arbitrary, is there a reason there is this much and not that much?
Is it possible that the relative strengths of the fundamental forces could have been other than they are? If it is is possible, then is there some explanation for why they are actually as they are rather than being otherwise?
If there is no reason for their being as they are and not otherwise, then what does it even mean to say they could have been otherwise? They could have been otherwise, if what had been different?
That I think is the crucial insight. You end up making the world unintelligible if you say it is gratuitous.
Now I admit that just saying “God” is the answer doesn’t tell you much. “God” is just a name. You might admit that there is a necessary being, but you might say that the necessary thing is the quantum fields or some other physical primitive. Nothing in the bare notion of a necessary being–thus defined–entails intelligence of free will or personhood, and it certainly doesn’t entail the truth of the Christian religion. But it still seems to me that to conclude that there is something–anything–that explains the world in its most basic reality, something at the start of it all that can’t not be, that is–in a sense–entailed by logic itself–is already a pretty big deal. Exactly what all the implications are I don’t know, but I’m pretty confident they are significant.
…If you allege that there is a contradiction between accepting God and accepting the results of science the net-net is that you are asking people to choose between God and science; you are insisting the two stand in opposition. The theist (assuming a philosophically serious theist) responds that there are similarly scientific reasons (“scientific” in the sense of rational reasons grounded in evidence) for thinking there actually is a God, and further, that denying God ultimately upends the whole enterprise of science.
Well science and faith only stand in opposition when believers make testable truth claims. That’s all science is interested in.
The fact that there are huge gaps in the current scientific understanding about the origin and development of the universe is not evidence for a God. The Big Bang only superficially resembles a creation event. (Actually it’s the moment at which reality becomes discernable by our instruments.) “Fine Tuning” may not even exist. (It’s likely an artifact of our limited perspective.)
Yes science relies on certain presuppositions. That our observations match reality on some level. That the so-called “Laws” of nature function consistently in time and space. (With discontinuities predicted by our analysis.) That the universe is amenable to our understanding. This position is called “methodological naturalism”. For science to function it must assume that what we observe is real and acts consistently and that we can understand it. An Ancient Near Eastern tribal deity is not required.
The whole scientific enterprise is tied up in searching for explanations of why things are what they are and why they behave as they behave. Scientists don’t just describe the world–what is and how it behaves–, they don’t just catalog reality; they ask for ever deeper explanations of why things are the way they are and why they behave as they behave.
In a scientific context “how” and “why” are frequently the same thing. When they are not the same “why” becomes meaningless. The Cosmos (for my purposes this includes but is not identical with our universe) is non-teleological. That is, it betrays no evidence of an end, a purpose, or a goal. ( Of course extrinsic purpose can be imposed by human use.)
The astonishing thing is that the cosmos is intelligible. (There’s no obvious reason why it should be so. Apparently the humble cockroach has thrived in pretty much it’s current form since before the dinosaurs walked the earth completely without understanding.) “Gratuitous” is simply a human value judgement.
Reality is like an onion. Slowly but surely we peel back the layers. We build models based on our observations. This is what we think is going on based on our current level of knowledge, subject to amendment (or disconfirmation) as we increase the level of our understanding. Does the cosmos/onion have a floor or a ceiling (to mix me some metaphors)? Unknown. Is there a point beyond which we cannot penetrate? Unknown. Science doesn’t deal in certainties or Absolute Truth. Science deals in probabilities. This is what we think we know based on where we are.
The religious impulse is to seek Absolute Truth and then to hold onto it without wavering. If there is a conflict between science and religion then it lies here I think.
If there is some Ultimate Reality, some Ground of Being, what are the chances it will resemble anything we can currently conceive of?
Let the cosmos reveal its secrets. Why drag along all this old baggage?
In a scientific context “how” and “why” are frequently the same thing.
I take your point: science is interested in what is somehow testable so “how” and “why” naturally overlap. Science aims at discovering laws that describe the world: I’m taking those laws as answers to the question “why” but there is no reason not to take them as answer to the simple question “how”. But still that overlap isn’t perfect.
Here’s how scientific advances generally take place:
1) we have a model of how some aspect of the world works. Every thing is hunky dory.
2) We observe something that doesn’t really fit that model.
3) we try to find a new model that will explain the stuff that we already thought we had figured out in the old model and the new stuff that doesn’t fit the old model.
What is crucial to recognize at this point is that if we are only interested in describing how the world behaves, we don’t need to search for a new model; we could just add an asterisk to our old model and say “things work however the old model said they work except in this special corner case, when things act this other way.”
But we don’t like that; it’s inelegant and ad hoc. We want a model that offers a reason why those exceptions are there–a model that shows us that really those exceptions aren’t exceptions at all. We don’t like random exceptions, we don’t like ad hoc models. We want to have a reason that tells us why those old laws don’t hold in those exceptional cases, and if we don’t have that sort of explanation we feel like we don’t actually understand even if we can describe perfectly how things act in all the cases we know of.
4) Once we have our more elegant explanation that equally accounts for the normal cases and the exceptional or anomalous cases, we go out of our way to imagine new and as yet unencountered situations where the two models differ in observable ways. This lets us test our new model, if the new models surprising predictions turn out true, we think we have figured it out. Otherwise, the model, however elegant it is, is considered false, not simply in need of a new asterisk noting the new exception.
What I’m getting at is that at a deep level, the whole process is driven by a need to be able to explain why the world behaves as it behaves, and as we explain more and more of the world’s behavior. We are never satisfied simply saying as a matter of fact this is what things do in x, y, or z circumstances and don’t ask why those cases are different. If we encounter exceptions that don’t seem to follow the known laws, we are not happy simply describing the behavior by adding an exception to the known laws so that the exception is now accounted for. We want a model that explains why that exception is different from the familiar cases.
* The Big Bang was not an “explosion”. It was the moment in time at which the density (ρ) of the universe was at Planck density (≈10⁹³ g/cm³). Since that time, ρ has been steadily decreasing as the universe is expanding.
* At ρ > Planck density, the known laws of General Relatively & Quantum Mechanics do not operate. We have absolutely no idea what happened before the Big Bang.
* The Big Bang is not necessarily the moment that the universe began. It is the earliest moment that we can describe on the basis of current knowledge.
That said, I think that “Why is there anything?” is a very reasonable question.
Tomos, if current states are the result of prior states, then it seems impossible to escape a determinist point of view.
Zena, welcome. No matter how often you try to explain to Christian fundamentalists that the Big Bang Theory only superficially resembles a “creation” event they still seem to fixate on the idea.
As far as “Why is there anything?” I suspect the answer might turn out to be that what we would characterize as “nothing”, the lack of anything whatsoever, simply cannot exist.
Thank you Stephen. While I agree that the Big Bang does not _necessarily_ represent a creation event, I think it is certainly a _possibility_ that it does. Respectfully disagreeing with you, I would say that the Big Bang bears a very good resemblance to a hypothetical creation event.
As far as I am aware, there are 3 leading theories to explain the Big Bang: Creation, Multiverse, & Oscillating Universe. I find Creation to be the most plausible (or least implausible). But I could be wrong.
If I may indulge in a bit of levity…
And God said:
* Let c = 2.998×10⁸ m/s
* Let h = 6.626×10⁻³⁴ J/Hz
* Let G = 6.673×10⁻¹¹ Nm²/kg²
And there was the Big Bang
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Back along I was interested in “Old Earth Creationism”, even was a subscriber to Hugh Ross’ program for a while.
But ultimately, too many contortions were required to make the OT text fit the facts, so I packed up Ross’ material & sent it all back.
Evolution, not special creation (neither the Old nor the Recent versions) fits the evidence.
Whether God might have made a few tweaks to the evolutionary process here & there, who knows.
I’m not going to say that he did, but I’m not going to insist that he didn’t.
================================
Have you seen Alan Hayward’s book, and if so, what did you think of it?
_Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible_
Do you think that starting with merely physics and chemistry, life can come from nonlife?
What do you think was responsible for the:
big bang?
origination of the vast quantity of information encoded in biology’s DNA?
I have not read Alan Hayward’s book so I’ll have to take his word for it that’s he done any “rethinking”.
Sure there are still mysteries to be solved but there’s really no way to deny the fundamental facts of evolutionary biology. Evolution is real and an accurate description of the observable processes of nature. Natural selection is by definition an unguided process. It can be explained without recourse to conscious external interference.
Genesis has nothing to do with science for the simple fact that science hadn’t been invented yet when it was written. Genesis is a theological/liturgical/mythological vision of the creation of the cosmos. Creation in an ancient near eastern context was a shaping into form of primeval chaos. For these ancient people the cosmos was three-tiered, a flat plate covered by the dome of the heavens, above and supported by a watery abyss, below.
Attempts to reconcile Genesis and science are misguided. Of course evolution raises all kinds of theological problems for the believer. But a system of belief that cannot survive a collision with the truth is not worth very many regrets.
Do you think that starting with merely physics and chemistry, life can come from nonlife?
The question rather answers itself does it not?
What do you think was responsible for the:
big bang?
origination of the vast quantity of information encoded in biology’s DNA?
Physics. Chemistry. Biology. Time. Sufficient resources for nature to work. Appropriate initial conditions. Adequate space.
“What do you think was responsible for the:
big bang?
origination of the vast quantity of information encoded in biology’s DNA?”
“Physics. Chemistry. Biology. Time. Sufficient resources for nature to work. Appropriate initial conditions. Adequate space”
What are 2 of the “appropriate initial conditions” for the big bang?
The universe is currently expanding.
As we go back in time, the universe gets smaller and smaller– do you believe the universe goes to a big bang singularity?
“Do you think that starting with merely physics and chemistry, life can come from nonlife?”
“The question rather answers itself does it not?”
Questions don’t answer themselves.
“Sure there are still mysteries to be solved”
Is how life could have originated via totally-mindless processes still a mystery?
1905 Haeckel, on 62
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The question of spontaneous generation or archigony — that is to say, of the first appearance of organic life on the earth, is one of the most difficult problems in biology
“Evolution is real and an accurate description of the observable processes of nature…
evolution raises all kinds of theological problems for the believer”
Meaning of “evolution”?
“Natural selection is by definition an unguided process.
It can be explained without recourse to conscious external interference”
A mutation can be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious.
Re: possible Amino Acid sequences 147 AAs long, the overwhelming percentage are nonfunctional, and a miniscule fraction are functional.
How did mutation + natural selection arrive at a functional hemoglobin subunit beta AA sequence?
_The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution_ (2012), 516pp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 391
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision.
This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty,” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure– we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem.
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
“I will be happy to debate the issue IF AND ONLY IF THE THEIST WILL DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN FOR THE REASONS THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO BELIEVE”
I don’t understand.
If poor reasons for a belief were supplanted by better reasons for that belief, are you asking for a defense of the poor reasons?
“These ‘arguments’ for the existence of God are secondary rationalizations for views that were already arrived at for other reasons”
Some guys treat women like disposable sex objects to be discarded at will, and think belief in God is inconsistent with that treatment of others, and go on to become atheists developing and having and propounding “secondary rationalizations”– e.g., ‘the problem of evil dispels any possible existence of a God of theism’– for their atheistic “views that were already arrived at for other reasons.”
“I have disavowed the religion I grew up with (and all religion for that matter), and while I won’t identify as a theist, I do still take some philosophical arguments for a God very seriously and really don’t know what to make of them”
Antony Flew
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul.
I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus.
For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely that the universe had a beginning. (p. 241)
“The Big Bang only superficially resembles a creation event”
“No matter how often you try to explain to Christian fundamentalists that the Big Bang Theory only superficially resembles a ‘creation’ event they still seem to fixate on the idea”
What are 2 differences between “the Big Bang” and “a creation event”?
“The concept of ‘Nothing’ means something different to an astrophysicist than it does colloquially. It does not mean the simple lack of anything whatsoever. That state is probably impossible given what we observe in the quantum realm”
Do you think a collapsing star on its way to becoming a black hole goes to 0 surface area and 0 volume?
The universe is currently expanding; do you think that as we go backward in time, the collapsing universe goes to a big bang singularity, with 0 surface area and 0 volume?
“‘God’ as an answer has no explanatory power”
How about ‘Evolution’?– does ascribing e.g. a variety of organisms’ eyes to ‘Evolution’ have “explanatory power”?
“What a scientist wants to know are the actual processes involved. We don’t know. Perhaps we never will”
“We don’t know. Perhaps we never will” re: what origins question(s)?
As far as you know, is anyone aware of what processes are involved in spontaneous generation– the arrival of life from non-life via totally-mindless processes?
Is his DNA-RNA-protein system’s origination account adequate & satisfactory?:
_The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity_, on 54
Driven by persistent energy flow, the complexity of a dissipative chemical network steadily increases, new features are forged, and finally, self-organization spawns a cell.
“‘God’ as an explanation, little more than a placeholder for a lack of imagination, simply shuts down the inquiry”
Have you ever believed that there is such a thing as ‘junk DNA’?
“they believe in… Jesus”
What’s your opinion of the Shroud of Turin?
How do you account for the origination of the Shroud of Turin’s body image?
“I will be happy to debate the issue IF AND ONLY IF THE THEIST WILL DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN FOR THE REASONS THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO BELIEVE”
I don’t understand.
If poor reasons for a belief were supplanted by better reasons for that belief, are you asking for a defense of the poor reasons?
I don’t want to speak out of turn, but I suspect his point is that it bespeaks ad hoc reasoning to foregone conclusions rather than an honest investigation.
I mean, it would be sort of remarkable if it just happened to turn out that all those theist philosophers ended up right even though they all started with poor reasons. Just on the face, it seems a lot more likely that they are, at best, deceiving themselves.
What’s your opinion of the Shroud of Turin?
How do you account for the origination of the Shroud of Turin’s body image?
Again, you didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer anyway, because that’s just how I roll.
I think it is an obvious forgery.
Even a cursory examination with the untrained, naked eye shows it is not anatomically correct. For one example, just look at the arms. Try it: Lie down and imitate the pose; see where your hands fall–does it match the image?
For another thing, the fact that the independent carbon datings all clustered around the same medieval time frame when it first appeared on the record says a lot. (and the attempts to explain those results away look just like that–why would the scientists taking a sample have tested a later patch?)
As to how the image was made, I don’t know. I haven’t been able to examine it in detail. But there are a number of theories, some seem plausible. I assume there is a natural explanation because the first historical record we have of the Shroud is the local bishop writing to the pope, saying not only that he had determined that it was a fraud, but that he had found the forger, and learned from him the manner in which he fabricated it.
“suspect his point is that it bespeaks ad hoc reasoning to foregone conclusions
rather than an honest investigation.
Could ‘The existence of God is disproven by the problem of evil’ constitute
an instance of “ad hoc reasoning to foregone conclusions”?
“it would be sort of remarkable if it just happened to turn out
that all those theist philosophers ended up right even though they all started with poor reasons”
Ended up being right about what?
_God and the Astronomers_ by Robert Jastrow
** you do not have permission to see this link **
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
he is about to conquer the highest peak;
as he pulls himself over the final rock,
he is greeted by a band of theologians
who have been sitting there for centuries.”
“Even a cursory examination with the untrained, naked eye shows it is not anatomically correct.
For one example, just look at the arms.
Try it: Lie down and imitate the pose; see where your hands fall–does it match the image?”
If I lie down and curve my back a little bit, my hands cover my groin area.
Just like in the Shroud image.
I’d expect some back curvature from someone who died via crucifixion.
Are the wrist (i.e., not hand) wounds “anatomically correct”?
“the fact that the independent carbon datings all clustered around the same medieval time frame
when it first appeared on the record says a lot. (and the attempts to explain those results away
look just like that–why would the scientists taking a sample have tested a later patch?)
Mistakes happen.
Even scientists have been known to make mistakes.
Studies on the radiocarbon
** you do not have permission to see this link **
–>
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area
coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations
prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud
“it is an obvious forgery”
It can’t even be replicated today with 21st century technology.
“As to how the image was made, I don’t know”
Do you know how life could have come from non-life via totally-mindless processes?
“there are a number of theories, some seem plausible”
What are 2 of those “plausible” theories?
Do you think the Shroud:
body image is a painting?
‘blood’ is actual blood?
‘blood’ is paint?
“I assume there is a natural explanation”
There have been many mistaken assumptions.
“because the first historical record we have of the Shroud is the local bishop writing to the pope, saying”
Memorandum of Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes
To The Avignon Pope Clement VII
Written circa 1389
(anonymous, unsigned, undated, unsealed, rough draft)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a
certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed
with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured
for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was
depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely
declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ
was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained
thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.
…
many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud
of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel
made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely
that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have
remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination,
he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth
being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill
and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
Do you believe the:
STURP testing on the Shroud confirms that the Shroud was fabricated?
Shroud image was “cunningly painted”?
“many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud
of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel
made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely
that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it”
The Shroud body image has been alleged to be ‘the work not of human hands.’
Did John write in 1 John 5 about the Shroud’s body image, blood stains, and ‘water’ stain?
1 John 5 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
6 This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ.
He did not come by water only,
but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit who testifies,
because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood;
and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept human testimony,
but God’s testimony is greater
because it is the testimony of God,
which he has given about his Son.
John 19 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear,
bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
35 The man who saw it has given testimony,
and his testimony is true.
He knows that he tells the truth,
and he testifies so that you also may believe.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)