I was deliberately avoiding questioning the authenticity of the shroud itself. Gil must be well aware of various criticisms about the shroud, and I see no need to go down that rabbit hole.
I am trying to consider the “philosophical evidence” at face value. We can spend all day criticizing the shroud as scientific evidence (where it agree it is problematic), but the OP calls for Philosophical evidence.
Trying to follow that sort of reasoning, I bump into troubles with depictions seeming to have the same value as evidence.
I’m am curious what @Giltil thinks. This is an opportunity for one of those Common Ground moments, of we can set aside arguing and look for understanding.
Good point. Philosophically, what would it reveal about the nature of God if he chooses to reveal his existence thru tawdry artifacts like this “shroud.” Is that really the best an omnipotent being could do? Or is he simply not interested in revealing his existence in a proper manner?
Just to be clear, what is the difference in merit between a philosophical argument that assumes the Shroud to be an obvious truth (as GIl did) and a philosophical argument that assumes it to be an obvious fraud (as I did)?
Heck if I know. I disagree with Gil on many things, and likely this too, but I’m trying to at least recognize his point of view. I also see no need to rehash old arguments.
See my reply to Faizal.
Gil offered a very brief reply which he certainly knows would draw the usual argument. We all know how that argument goes, so I’m trying a different approach. Will something different will happen? I would like to think so.
There are plenty of evidences that the shroud predates the medieval ages. There are plenty of evidences that it is the shroud of Jesus. As for the evidence for the resurrection, it has to do with the the absolute singularity of the shroud, which echoes the absolute singularity of the resurrection.
For the purposes of this discussion I have agreed to accept the shroud as a genuine miracle. It remains to be seen exactly what that means, but we can discuss.
Can you expand on what you mean by absolute singularity? Sure it is a unique artifact, but in other contexts we usually think having multiple examples is better than having just one.
The Last Supper is also an absolute singularity, but perhaps in a different way? I would also like your opinion on other depictions of Jesus. I think I know what that might be, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
We’ve been through this before, more than once. You failed to provide any evidence that it was the shroud of Jesus then, and no doubt will fail to do so again.
Is what we are observing explainable by random change? Is what we are observing explainable by a mind that is as powerful as most sophisticated mind the exists today?
If you wanted to create a living organism with different chemicals then DNA where should you start?
Almost every claim has a counter claim. I don’t agree the reasoning is circular as you are simply comparing two pieces of evidence, Isaiah 53 and Acts 8 which were generated at two different times hundreds of years apart and they match. Again any single piece of evidence can be countered with a hypothetical. The total evidentiary picture is what is convincing.
The whole picture of Isaiah is about judgement and hope. The hope is the Messiah. These arguments are cherry picking and do not make sense if you have a complete understanding of the book of Isaiah.
Again this is more cherry picking. The text says that Messiah will be cut off in the first century. If taken in context the prophecy of Isaiah was available to Daniel the only reasonable explanation is that it is a very compelling prophecy of Jesus.
If it was the only evidence then yes we would not have 2 billion Christians today.
We are not in a court of law. We are evaluating documented evidence. Why as the closest disciple to Jesus would he make this claim if he had not witnessed it? How did Paul know that Jesus rose from the dead if the people he got this from had not witnessed it.
You have found the possibility of truth in all these arguments. When is enough evidence enough? What convinces you that Christianity is true?
Can we cut Gil a little slack? We all know the old arguments, but there is potential here for something new, or at least different.
Gil had given us a small insight into his beliefs (thank you, Gil). Whether or not we agree is beside the point. If this is not intended as scientific evidence then we should not criticize it as such.
As it remains to be seen whether Gil has any either the interest or ability to engage in that discussion, you should feel free to respond to the questions I raised. Unless “Heck if I know” is your best answer. Which, to be clear, is not such a bad answer at all. But if you have more to say on the subject, it might help kill some time.
How, though, can a claim that the shroud is genuine NOT be a scientific claim? I understand your proposition to sort of “wall off” that issue by assuming, arguendo, the authenticity of the shroud, but even then, what you have is not a philosophical argument as that term is ordinarily understood in this context but an argument from evidence, in which the nature and quality of the evidence has to be judged in order to understand what weight to give it.
I would say that claims about the shroud belong very much in that realm: they are, and can be judged only as, evidence-based positions in which nothing but the weight of the evidence, and the strength of the inferences to be drawn from that evidence, are really germane. By “philosophical” arguments for the gods, people usually mean arguments which depend only thinly on facts and instead arise from the clever use of verbal ambiguity or the naive application of apparent logic to poorly-defined propositions, e.g., the ontological argument, the K-Tel cosmological argument (free Vege-Matic with every purchase!), et cetera.
On my part, sheer grit and a steak of contrariness. Also grinding of teeth.
We know where the scientific argument leads, and I’m bumping into troubles almost immediately trying a philosophical approach. If the discussion is to continue, then the least I can do is be polite in my disagreement, and encourage others to do the same. Everyone else here seems hyper-focused on winning an argument rather than exploring a question to see where it will go. Maybe it goes nowhere - I don’t know, but the discussion need not be a zero-sun game.
Yes, I’ve seen this lecture by Barry Schwortz some time ago. Very interesting. IMHO, that a Jew naturally inclined to resist the authenticity of the shroud, after having devoted many years of his life to the study of the shroud, eventually came to the conclusion of its authenticity is very telling.
That may be. It seems to me that people have MOSTLY stuck to the question of just what the philosophical arguments are, but the difficulty is that there really isn’t a lot of novelty there. And I suppose that’s not surprising, given the fact that most of the classic arguments in this area are no good and that, when you are in a “pure reason” space like this, it’s very unlikely that someone comes up with a new one which is better than anyone else has come up with in the last few thousand years.
When I was a kid in college, I thought the “problem of evil” was an inescapable philosophical killer argument. But the more I examined that and other things, the more I was persuaded that I was wrong; that philosophy could do no work on this subject but supply us the working rules of empiricism; and that the question of the existence of practically anything is bound, by the nature of the thing, to be an argument which turns on the weight of evidence, not upon the application of pure reason to verbal propositions.
