Ok, I tried twice to get a direct answer from you to a very simple question – so, I will suggest that (in making such a good effort to avoid the discussion that) miracles are probably a lot more important to you than you might think.
Sorry, didn’t intend to be obscure. I wouldn’t say miracles are impossible, but if they do occur they are exceptionally rare.
*You reference scientific research. Obviously, that is one method you use to determine if the Shroud has a supernatural origin or not. That’s design detection. *
I didn’t understand the “design detection” comment, but if the scientific method found an origin previously thought to be supernatural, it would immediately be reclassified as natural since scientists would want to study it!
I offered some facts to consider and it might be a question not of cynicism but of bias – I’m just suggesting for your own reflection and not to prove anything to me.
Yes, I definitely have a bias towards accepting likely over unlikely explanations.
Again … this is a cloth. Apparently you accept that there is an image on it, and that the image has enough specified complexity that it needs to be explained somehow. (How did you determine that?)
The image is visible, especially in negative, although to me the face looks like an old man, not the age of Jesus. I wouldn’t say the need to explain is proportional to complexity - the image of a paper clip on the shroud might be more intriguing.
*But in this case of a mere image on a cloth, you correctly point out that science does not have an explanation – it remains a mystery.
How would an unbiased observer accept that fact?*
Science
has produced explanations, but there is disagreement, for instance three labs independently dated fragments as 13th C but some people then claimed those fragments were from medieval repairs. As the Cathedral authorities don’t want to keep removing bits just to find its origin, the mystery will probably remain.
I then ask you if you think it is impossible that the image was created by a supernatural source, and you avoid answering the question.
As the shroud is physical, the image must have a physical origin. For instance, if the image is the result of molecular changes caused by UV light, the photons must have been physical and must themselves have had a physical origin. To me, it’s incoherent to say that the physical cloth could be changed by something non-physical, and so the phrase “supernatural source” says no more than “currently uncertain source”.
What evidence has convinced you that Jesus existed in history?
I said “I don’t personally question whether Jesus existed in history”. If you parse that sentence, you’ll see it doesn’t involve a need to be convinced by historical evidence.
Where does one find evidence of Jesus without using any objects?
How can one determine that He was the Son of God?
How can one determine which Christian Church one should join?
What evidence convinces you that the Baptist Church is correct in its teachings?
The Baptist teaching is that everyone is free to come to God in our own way, and that Baptists choose, as Paul put it, Christ crucified. To me, Paul’s point is that we don’t find Christ in signs (relics, miracles, design) or in wisdom (philosophy, history books, science labs). The world in its wisdom doesn’t know Him since “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom”. The foolishness of God is that we find Christ within us, kind of the last place we may have thought to look.
the more confused I get.
