I used the word “measurable” for a reason. A prediction is not a physical thing that can be touched or measured. Neither is its relation to the fulfillment of that prediction. These are connections which are recognized only through logical inference, not science.mytruepower2:
There’s plenty of evidence. Perhaps you mean ‘proof’? Given that light in a vacuum has never deviated when measured is a piece of evidence for example. The fact that Einstein’s formulas derived from that assumptions have born actual tangible predictions that have since been proven correct is evidence. If you’re point is no one is out there with really long tape measure and a stop watch then you’re right it’s infeasible to ever prove it that way. But the same way each piece of evidence in a trial doesn’t prove the case, but cumulatively they justify a conclusion, there’s evidence for relativity being correct.
As I said you started with the conclusion and worked backwards. The shroud from what I saw last night was tested by multiple locations specifically to help prevent bias from one. It was also supposed to be done blind, meaning they would test multiple samples and not know which was the shroud, that would have meant if they wanted to fake the ages they’d have a harder time, since the control samples would be of a known age. They originally were going to have several additional labs run the tests which would have made it even more difficult to manipulate the data. Most of these protocols were downgraded by the church, which was understandably hesitant to cut more of the shroud than necessary, and had trouble sourcing control material.
First, logical inference is absolutely part of science, where do you think hypotheses come from? Models are build using existing data and inferences before being tested.
I remember watching a video once where a Muslim was making an argument for Islam by pointing out how peaceful and calming Thursday is. He concluded that since the Quran tells him that Thursday is a holy and blessed day and that the day itself feels different just as you’d expect, that it proves the Quran is correct in its teaching.
As Mark Antonacci has noted, the C-14 data was manipulated to give “acceptable” dates of 1260 to 1390 when the actual results of the raw data were 1195 to 1448. I recommend his book, TEST THE SHROUD, 2015.
This misrepresentation has been clearly and comprehensively refuted. To continue to propound it in the face of this refutation smacks of dishonesty.
I don’t. Although Ian Wilson is as pro-Shroud as Antonacci, he is much fairer in his assessment of the evidence, and does not distort it in order to support his contention. I recommend his books instead.
It sounds good, but it is not, of course, at all historically consistent, as there is no “history” for it to be consistent with. Its depiction of resurrection form the dead is in stark contrast to the other three such resurrections noted in the gospels. If we consider the gospels to be history, and for Jesus’s resurrection to be consistent, then he just woke up from the dead, without dematerialising in an atomic explosion.
This is an unwarranted piece of calumny, unsupported by any evidence at all.
You’re just being disingenuous at this point. If you choose an explanation because it supports what you believe to be true, then that can’t be used as evidence to support the event in question.
The idea that we somehow know what kind of radiation God leaves when he goes to and from heaven seems like a solid case for not reading scripture while watching Star Trek.
When I use the word “physical” in this context, I’m not referring to the science of physics, but to the state of being a physical thing, as defined in the dictionary, definition 3a on M-W, which reads…
This seems to be the key point of confusion here. Data and measurements are science and in some cases, mathematics and perception as well. Logic, however, is an entirely different order of knowledge, consisting of inductive and deductive proofs. These methods of proof undergird and support science, but they are not part of science. They fall within the realm of philosophy; the use of logic to draw proper conclusions, in the proper way, based on the available data.
I’m afraid that doesn’t make it any clearer. A physical change always refers to the science of physics. The definition you refer to is merely a sub-set, as a physical change to a human body. These changes are as scientific as any other. I think now you may be redefining the word body as well as the word physical. That’s fine, but it in no way explains what happens in transubstantiation, or permits you to call it a physical event unless it can be detected.
This here seems to be the point of confusion. Changes themselves are not “scientific.” Science is only a method which we use to acquire information; it doesn’t refer to anything as it really is.