Evidence for Design?

[atheistgirl]

Uh - it was God’s son. the second person of the Trinity.

Take a look at this. Ever heard of Saint Faustina and the image she had painted?

Divine Mercy and Shroud of Turin

I know that this is what a lot of people believe. What I meant was you’d have to demonstrate that the ‘‘supernatural’’ force involved was indeed the God of Revelation, as opposed to some ‘‘other’’ supernatural force. Many people believe in a God of some kind, from different faiths, so how would you demonstrate the ‘‘supernatural’’ force was the Christian God of Revelation, and not Allah, for example - that’s what I was getting at.

I looked at the YT video - honestly, when I freeze frame in two windows, you can see just how different these pictures are - face shape, cheek definition, forehead, eyebrows … you cant look at them in two different frames and contend they are the same people.

Another thing occurs to me - Ive not heard of or had time to look up Saint Faustina but could she have seen the Shroud of Turin in her lifetime?

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

I know that this is what a lot of people believe. What I meant was you’d have to demonstrate that the ‘‘supernatural’’ force involved was indeed the God of Revelation, as opposed to some ‘‘other’’ supernatural force. Many people believe in a God of some kind, from different faiths, so how would you demonstrate the ‘‘supernatural’’ force was the Christian God of Revelation, and not Allah, for example - that’s what I was getting at.

I looked at the YT video - honestly, when I freeze frame in two windows, you can see just how different these pictures are - face shape, cheek definition, forehead, eyebrows … you cant look at them in two different frames and contend they are the same people.

Another thing occurs to me - Ive not heard of or had time to look up Saint Faustina but could she have seen the Shroud of Turin in her lifetime?

Sarah x

Allah and the Christian God are the very same. Jew, Muslims and Christians all worship the God of Abraham.

You have to pull the 3D out of the shroud and the image. In addition Jesus’ face was bruised and swollen.

No - Faustina was an uneducated peasant girl from Poland. Upon reading her diary her theological depth is astounding.

 

[reggieM]

I dont think so.

However the Shroud was formed, It will have been by natural means.

Scientists may not know exactly by what natural means as of yet, but they’ll crack it one day for sure, the the explanation will involved nothing outside of nature. Of that I am as sure as sure can be.

Sarah x

How did you determine the probability that the Shroud was created by natural means?
On what basis do you think that a supernatural origin is impossible?

 

[reggieM]

Indeed.

Much as anyone accepting a supernatural origin for the Shroud would have to explain how that supernatural origin is linked in any way with the God of Revelation.

Sarah x

Once you accept that a supernatural origin is possible, you would not investigate the supernatural with a method that is limited to the natural. That would be an obvious absurdity.

 

[reggieM]

There is Sr. Faustina’s painting, and also the Veil of Manoppello:

“The Manoppello cloth is a standing miracle, equal to the Shroud of Turin and the tilma of Guadalupe, and equally open to scientific investigation and unrefuted by it.” – Peter Kreeft

The Manoppello cloth shows no ink, paint or human design in the translucent image. It also fits exactly as super-imposed over the Shroud image.

So, it’s important to gather all the related evidence.

 

[buffalo]

There is Sr. Faustina’s painting, and also the Veil of Manoppello:

“The Manoppello cloth is a standing miracle, equal to the Shroud of Turin and the tilma of Guadalupe, and equally open to scientific investigation and unrefuted by it.” – Peter Kreeft

The Manoppello cloth shows no ink, paint or human design in the translucent image. It also fits exactly as super-imposed over the Shroud image.

So, it’s important to gather all the related evidence.

Is that the Sudarium?

 

[atheistgirl]

There is Sr. Faustina’s painting, and also the Veil of Manoppello:

“The Manoppello cloth is a standing miracle, equal to the Shroud of Turin and the tilma of Guadalupe, and equally open to scientific investigation and unrefuted by it.” – Peter Kreeft

The Manoppello cloth shows no ink, paint or human design in the translucent image. It also fits exactly as super-imposed over the Shroud image.

So, it’s important to gather all the related evidence.

Ive not heard of the Manoppello Cloth before. Having looked at the image, and the image of the Shroud and the image Saint Faustina painted, I honestly, really can not see how they could ever be thought of as even being similar, never mind the same, image.

Sarah x

 

[reggieM]

Is that the Sudarium?

The Sudarium is blood stained - matching the Shroud. So there’s another important image that needs to be taken into consideration.

The Veil of Manoppello is Veronica’s Veil – which, amazingly, is not in the Vatican as it has been believed to be for many years.

Pope Benedict visited Manoppello in 2005 – giving recognition to “The Face of God” there. The Poet Dante wrote about the Manoppello image which is imprinted on a special cloth that cannot accept any paint or dye – the image is scientifically inexplicable.

Artistic elements from that image can be seen in Christian icons going back to the early centuries. It was known from ancient times.

There’s a lot of evidence to research – and when you add everything from these “inexplicable” images then the evidence becomes stronger.

 

[reggieM]

Ive not heard of the Manoppello Cloth before. Having looked at the image, and the image of the Shroud and the image Saint Faustina painted, I honestly, really can not see how they could ever be thought of as even being similar, never mind the same, image.

Sarah x

There’s a great book on the Manoppello Face by Paul Badde. It’s a remarkable story that moves through the centuries. He discovered many things along the way.
This blog looks pretty good:

holyfaceofmanoppello.blogspot.com/

 

[reggieM]

More design detection from scientists:

shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf

3-D PROCESSING TO EVIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS
REPRESENTED IN MANOPPELLO VEIL
Jan S. Jaworski* and Giulio Fanti°
*Faculty of Chemistry, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, e-mail:
jaworski@chem.uw.edu.pl
°Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy,
www.dim.unipd.it/fanti

Two opposite opinions were proposed as concerns the nature of the image, probably also because the Veil has a specific feature: when seen at first sight it appears as a normal artistic painting, but after a detailed analysis some characteristics appear that may speak in favor of a supernatural hypothesis of the image formation.

Some similarities between the Manoppello Face and the Face of the Shroud of Turin (hereafter called Shroud) have also attracted attention in recent years. Their likeness was proposed by Schlömer7 and next extensively studied by Pfeiffer8 and Resch. Using a superimposition of two images on transparent foils, it was shown that not only a general
appearance but also some details of the Face in both images are consistent. Resch indicated ten congruence points which were used to perfect adjustment of both images one to another.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

More design detection from scientists:

shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf

3-D PROCESSING TO EVIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS
REPRESENTED IN MANOPPELLO VEIL
Jan S. Jaworski* and Giulio Fanti°
*Faculty of Chemistry, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, e-mail:
jaworski@chem.uw.edu.pl
°Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy,
www.dim.unipd.it/fanti

Two opposite opinions were proposed as concerns the nature of the image, probably also because the Veil has a specific feature: when seen at first sight it appears as a normal artistic painting, but after a detailed analysis some characteristics appear that may speak in favor of a supernatural hypothesis of the image formation.

Some similarities between the Manoppello Face and the Face of the Shroud of Turin (hereafter called Shroud) have also attracted attention in recent years. Their likeness was proposed by Schlömer7 and next extensively studied by Pfeiffer8 and Resch. Using a superimposition of two images on transparent foils, it was shown that not only a general
appearance but also some details of the Face in both images are consistent. Resch indicated ten congruence points which were used to perfect adjustment of both images one to another.

Why is this being treated as a scientific hypothesis?

 

[tonyrey]

. How do you define “natural”?

I’m afraid that doesn’t tell us anything!

2. What are its precise limits?

The limits placed on whatever by nature itself

How did nature originate?

3. How do you determine its limits?

Nature and whatever the nature of the thing in question does

I’m still none the wiser. What exactly is “nature”? (without using the word “natural”!)

4. Is reality restricted to what can be detected with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?

No we have machines to detect things we cant - but they still occur within nature

But we use our eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin to interpret the information given by those machines. Do we have any other source of knowledge?

5. What makes you believe **everything **

is “natural”? Because I see no evidence of anything other.

How would you define “supernatural”?

 

[reggieM]

Why is this being treated as a scientific hypothesis?

When detecting design in nature through science, you start with what has been observed and proceed with scientific questions and reasoning:

– is there an image on the cloth?
– do others recognize that there is a distinct image present?
– does the image give evidence of having been designed?
– could the image have been made by any known human source?
– could the image be due to a natural process?
– could the image be the result of chance?

Then the investigation can go farther – into the history of the cloth, evidence about its origin, and comparisons with other images of a similar, inexplicable nature.

The final result will answer this question:

Is the evidence that this image has been designed by a non-human, non-natural process … Strong, Weak or Non-Existent?

Science cannot arrive at an absolute certainty – it can only provide conclusions from evidence which is plausible to varying degrees.

 

[tonyrey]

Being a thorough cynic, I also wonder why they made news of this just in time for Christmas.

Those who are determined not to believe will never accept any evidence whatsoever - even though it is consistent with their faith - and will look for any pretext for rejecting it…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is the evidence that this image has been designed by a non-human, non-natural process … Strong, Weak or Non-Existent?

Science cannot arrive at an absolute certainty – it can only provide conclusions from evidence which is plausible to varying degrees.

But if methodological naturalism is the basis from which the scientific method makes inferences, surely it cannot provide scientific conclusions for that which is not a measurable part of physical reality?

 

[tonyrey]

The Sudarium is blood stained - matching the Shroud. So there’s another important image that needs to be taken into consideration.

The Veil of Manoppello is Veronica’s Veil – which, amazingly, is not in the Vatican as it has been believed to be for many years.

Pope Benedict visited Manoppello in 2005 – giving recognition to “The Face of God” there. The Poet Dante wrote about the Manoppello image which is imprinted on a special cloth that cannot accept any paint or dye – the image is scientifically inexplicable.

Artistic elements from that image can be seen in Christian icons going back to the early centuries. It was known from ancient times.

There’s a lot of evidence to research – and when you add everything from these “inexplicable” images then the evidence becomes stronger.

it is significant how some people regard it as a fake on principle even though they have never bothered to study all the evidence…

Their principle is “Miracles never happen and **cannot **happen under any circumstances”.

Why not? Because they are unscientific! (As if science is the **sole **criterion of reality…)

 

[tonyrey]

But if methodological naturalism is the basis from which the scientific method makes inferences, surely it cannot provide scientific conclusions for that which is not a measurable part of physical reality?

I must be telepathic! I have just written - without having read your post:

Their principle is “Miracles never happen and **cannot **happen under any circumstances”.

Why not? Because they are unscientific! (As if science is the **sole **criterion of reality…)

 

[reggieM]

But if methodological naturalism is the basis from which the scientific method makes inferences …{/quote}

First of all, we covered this topic in several posts on this thread that you might want to review:

#42 – Science investigates the non-natural, immaterial. As Al Moritz points out, this is not even possible philosophically, but it is an ordinary method that science pursues regularily.

#53 – Tony gives a brilliant explanation on how science regularly studies non-natural phenomena and therefore violates methodological naturalism. Good or bad, that is simply what is done.

#68, #94, #108, #140 – abundant, irrefutable evidence that the study of non-natural, immaterial essences is an ordinary and unanimously accepted scientific approach. Al Moritz concedes that my points on this are correct.

Elsewhere on this thread I pointed out that one of the most prominent scientists in the world explained the science of biology requiring a recognition of “purpose” – a metaphysical concept.

All of that said … let’s just pretend that science actually follows the arbitrary rules of naturalism …

… surely it cannot provide scientific conclusions

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m afraid that doesn’t tell us anything!

Oh well

How did nature originate?

Diskuscion of sertin topiks are now baned rite akross CAF as you well no.

Do we have any other source of knowledge?

How would you define “supernatural”?

It’s supper - outcide of nature.



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

it is significant how some people regard it as a fake on principle even though they have never bothered to study all the evidence…

Their principle is “Miracles never happen and **cannot **happen under any circumstances”.

Why not? Because they are unscientific! (As if science is the **sole **criterion of reality…)

I wouldn’t say it was fake. Clearly there is a shroud with an image on it. But whether the back story is genuine or not… well …

But I would say miracles can not happen.

So however the Shroud was created, I do think it was created, using ordinary methods. The fact there is disagreement and uncertaintly about how this came about doesn’t justify, to me, and in my opinion only, I do accept, filling in the gaps with any sort of supernatural claims.

The Church doesn’t seem to have come down on one side or the other in the debate, does it? Or am I mistaken?

Sarah x