“Could” isn’t “would”. I would expect radio-carbon dating results on further samples to confirm the results already obtained. It would, I hope, resolve the doubt cast by some that the already-dated samples were somehow unrepresentative.
1 Like
No, he doesn’t. In fairness, he does try to make arguments for his underlying assumptions. But it should be plain to an Oxford professor of philosophy that any argument for the historicity of the resurrection requiring that one first demonstrate the existence of the Christian god is a non-starter right out the gate.
1 Like
He seems to believe otherwise:
I have argued at considerable length over many years2 in favour of the view that the existence of a universe, its almost total conformity to natural laws, those laws being such as to lead to the evolution of human beings, those human beings having souls (a continuing mental life whose continuity is separate from the continuity of their physical life), the occurrence of various events in history, and millions of humans having experiences which seem to them to be of God, is evidence which (despite the occurrence of evil) makes probable the existence of God.
Whereas I would expect nothing of the sort from people desperate enough to propose nuclear fission of a resurrected cadaver as a serious explanation for something. Remember, “Nuns patched the Shroud” is but one excuse made to deny the dating, and that one has already been debunked by analysis of the sample by a university lab.
Well, to paraphrase @AlanFox, “should be plain” is not “would be plain.”
1 Like
Yes, but you failed to take account of the fact that this “Oxford professor of philosophy” is also an ardent Christian Apologist.
Should a Christian Apologist believe that they cannot “first demonstrate the existence of the Christian god”? That would seem unreasonable.
[1 quote=“Faizal_Ali, post:610, topic:16910”]
Remember, “Nuns patched the Shroud” is but one excuse made to deny the dating, and that one has already been debunked by analysis of the sample by a university lab.
[/quote]
Ah, I keep meaning to read the paper on that. I have downloaded it. The “patching” claim is speculation by those with a vested interest in defending the authenticity of the relic. The reluctance to submit the relic to further testing is itself a bit of a giveaway.
1 Like
There were more than sufficient grounds to reject the authenticity of the shroud before the radiocarbon dating confirmed that verdict. This is not a case of radiocarbon dating versus other evidence.
5 Likes
I don’t think the Catholic Church is that firmly in the ‘authenticist’ camp. I suspect that they merely see no good coming for them from stirring things up further, and would prefer to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’.
3 Likes
I try to avoid synecdoche (except to argue whether it is a figure of speech, a fallacy, or both). I think you are right that there are many Catholics (including those in authority) who have moved on from venerating relics of dubious provenance. But among whoever is charge and makes decisions about conservation etc I suspect there is a significant element who would prefer to keep the shroud away from scientists.
If they think the “shroud” is real, wouldn’t they welcome the opportunity to repeat the testing and discredit the original results? It seems like a win/win proposition to me. If the new tests show it is 2000 years old, then good for them. And if they just confirm the original results, then that will change nothing. Those convinced that the “shroud” is real would just take that as further confirmation of the Radioactive Resurrecting Cadaver Hypothesis.
1 Like
But it’s worse than that. For instance he assumes the reliability of the Gospels. In reality we do not have a good idea of what Jesus did or taught in life, so we can’t really tell if the historical Jesus met Swinburne’s criteria to be resurrected. And even those criteria assume Christian belief and need more argument than Swinburne provides.
I’d even assert that the obscurity of the historical Jesus is itself an argument against Swinburne’s claims - shouldn’t his God-man be better documented?
1 Like
Yes. Though I don’t know if Swinburn does this specifically, WL Craig and other apologists cite the “resurrection” as evidence for the truth of Christianity. And round and round we go…
Hi Ron
How would you argue against authenticity if additional Carbon 14 data followed Ruckers model?
The strongest case for authenticity is an image generated at least 700 years ago that we cannot duplicate today. I don’t see any skeptics with the exception of @Rumraket trying to address this issue.
Hi Alan
Investigation of the shroud continues such as looking at carbon, nitrogen etc content in the blood stains. The problem with carbon dating is it is destructive to the sample.
The image is definitive and independent evidence against authenticity. It is not even close to topologically consistent with a body being wrapped in a burial cloth, nor is it anatomically proportional, but is designed to present a familiar representation.
Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin - a Digital 3D Approach
the pattern corresponds more to a low-relief origin than to the volumetry of a real human body in a post-mortem state.
Shroud of Turin was not used to wrap Jesus’ body after crucifixion
In addition to the Carbon-14 test, there are other arguments supporting the thesis that the Holy Shroud is a hoax. One of them, proposed by the author in the form of an anatomical analysis, is the disproportion of the limbs of the figure represented on the cloth.
3 Likes
You need to back up a bit. The patent absurdity is that the “shroud” is genuine. Shellacking the nonsense in countless layers of absurd analysis may build up quite a body of shellac, but there is still nothing inside. The whole point of exercises such as you are engaged in is to render the core absurdity as a kind of analytical abstraction, in the hopes that the horrid and hilarious nature of the actual proposition being defended will fade from view as people argue over minutiae.
7 Likes
As ever, you misunderstand the conversation being had. This is not a game. You may be on some “team”, committed to a conclusion no matter what. Most of the rest of us are not. If the evidence some day should indicate that you or Rucker are right, so be it. I for one, would have no issue admitting error and correcting myself, and though Ron did not elect me to speak on his behalf, it would frankly surprise me if his position was significantly different in this regard.
However, that day has not yet come. Right now the evidence does not, in fact, confirm your conclusion, or unambiguously support Rucker’s “model”. Right now we are stuck concluding that you’re wrong, and right now you and yours are pretending like it is not so, or that you’d respect the evidence, if only it were even more damning than it is.
We can figure out what to do in case the weights of the evidence change if and when they do, but for now, they are what they are and we just point and laugh at you lot.
5 Likes
There is evidence that nitrogen was dramatically reduced in the Turin blood samples. The problem is you have previously dismissed the possibility of neutrons being emitted from the body based on your own personal incredulity.
- I have not. That’s just straight up a lie.
- Personal incredulity would not have been why.
- My dismissal of anything based on what ever in no way affects the existence of the evidence you allege there is. It would not be a problem, much less the problem for your case.
1 Like
Hi Ron
What you cited is more opinion than evidence. We still lack any explanation for how the image was formed by a forger or artist 700 years ago.