Scientists: Shroud of Turin could not be faked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel_Serafin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what atheist will claim to say this isn’t Jesus

I think its kinda obvious but that is just me.
 
So basically, because they haven’t found the method by which the shroud was faked this time, God ‘must’ have done it.

What lazy, ‘God-of-the-gaps’ research! :mad:
 
Kouyate42 said:
So basically, because they haven’t found the method by which the shroud was faked this time, God ‘must’ have done it.

What lazy, ‘God-of-the-gaps’ research! :mad:
Click to expand...
…No. Did you even read the article?
 
These researchers determined that the image could be replicated with pulses of UV light… and so they conclude that the image on the shroud was matter of fact produced by UV light.

They seem to be Affirming the Consequent, which as we all know is logically invalid deductive reasoning, and makes for really bad scientific conclusions.
 
Kouyate42 said:
I’ve read this in the French-language press
Click to expand...
So why you are claiming, that they said ‘God done it’ which is not the conclusion of the study, in fact they said exactly how they could produce an image like it (UV light in short concentrated bursts) that could not be replicated in the Middle Ages, but could be explained with modern science, but however could not be replicated exactly (basically saying they could not repeat the image).

And they went on to say that they will leave it up to Philosophers, Theologians and ultimately people themselves as to what caused the image to be created in the 1st few centuries AD.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
These researchers determined that the image could be replicated with pulses of UV light… and so they conclude that the image on the shroud was matter of fact produced by UV light.

They seem to be Affirming the Consequent, which as we all know is logically invalid deductive reasoning, and makes for really bad scientific conclusions.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that God did it and that there are no other possibilities?

Here is a relevant passage from the article:

*
Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ’s Resurrection.

“We are not at the conclusion. We are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle,” the team reported.

Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, who led the research, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things such as miracles and resurrection. But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes​
*.

I see nothing that says, “God done it.”
 
I didn’t claim that their conclusion involved God… but it does involve pulses of UV light due to their ability to replicate the image using UV light. This is a logically invalid form of argumentation.
 
What is amazing is that atheists claim to know enough about the Universe to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God and yet scientists cannot even date a piece of cloth!
 
I’ve been reading about this for some years. I’ll revisit it when the Church proclaims that the Shroud is in fact, one hundred percent the burial cloth of Christ. So far that hasn’t happened.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
These researchers determined that the image could be replicated with pulses of UV light… and so they conclude that the image on the shroud was matter of fact produced by UV light.

They seem to be Affirming the Consequent, which as we all know is logically invalid deductive reasoning, and makes for really bad scientific conclusions.
Click to expand...
Most scientific arguments are based on probable, not demonstrative reasoning. For example, a scientist might say:

If evolution occurred, then we should be able to find such and such fossil.
We found such and such fossil.
Therefore, evolution probably occurred.

Because you are affirming the consequent, your affirmation of the antecedent could only be probable.

Well, isn’t that the same reasoning that the scientists who investigated the Shroud are making here? The argument is like this:

If UV light produced the image on the shroud, then we should be able to at least partially replicate the process in the lab.
We were able to partially replicate the process in the lab.
Therefore, UV light probably produced the image on the shroud.

Basically the same form of reasoning. So, why should we consider the reasoning for evolution be accepted, but not for the Shroud? In both cases no more than a probable conclusion is being made.

The new discovery means that more proofs, testing, or study may be in order. Although none of these proofs taken by themselves are conclusive, the cumulative weight of the evidence lends more credibility to the authenticity of the Shroud. In the same manner, a scientific hypothesis becomes even more probable the more confirmation is found in support of it.

The truth is, there are plenty of evidences pointing to the authenticity of the Shroud, based on fabric study, blood stain examination, etc. The only evidence that seems to point to forgery was the C14 conducted a few years ago, and which scientists have disputed anyway. So, even that was not conclusive either.

So, personally, do I think the Shroud is authentic? Well, let me put it this way. I think I have great reasons to believe that it is authentic, and I have no conclusive evidence to show that it is fake.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
These researchers determined that the image could be replicated with pulses of UV light… and so they conclude that the image on the shroud was matter of fact produced by UV light.

They seem to be Affirming the Consequent, which as we all know is logically invalid deductive reasoning, and makes for really bad scientific conclusions.
Click to expand...
You are right. The argument was logically invalid. However, that wasn’t the reasoning here. Scientists discovered that the image on the Shroud could have been produced by UV light. So, the reasoning employed is more like this:

If the image on the Shroud was produced by UV light, and the image was faked by this process, then human technology was available to generate the required UV light that would produce the image.
But human technology was not available now or back then to generate the required UV light that would produce the image.
Therefore, if the image on the Shroud was produced by UV light, then the image was not faked by this process.

The conclusion then is that the Shroud was not faked by a process involving UV light. Of course, this is still not definite because it is possible that some other process could be discovered in the future to produce the same image. For years scientists have been looking for a natural process that would explain how the image on the Shroud was produced. The process by UV light is the most recent discovery, but it could not possibly have been used by man.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
I didn’t claim that their conclusion involved God… but it does involve pulses of UV light due to their ability to replicate the image using UV light. This is a logically invalid form of argumentation.
Click to expand...
Not at all, they did not claim that UV is the only way the Shroud receive its image–they just noted that UV could do that.
 
rom422 said:
You are right. The argument was logically invalid. However, that wasn’t the reasoning here. Scientists discovered that the image on the Shroud could have been produced by UV light. So, the reasoning employed is more like this:

If the image on the Shroud was produced by UV light, and the image was faked by this process, then human technology was available to generate the required UV light that would produce the image.
But human technology was not available now or back then to generate the required UV light that would produce the image.
Therefore, if the image on the Shroud was produced by UV light, then the image was not faked by this process.

The conclusion then is that the Shroud was not faked by a process involving UV light. Of course, this is still not definite because it is possible that some other process could be discovered in the future to produce the same image. For years scientists have been looking for a natural process that would explain how the image on the Shroud was produced. The process by UV light is the most recent discovery, but it could not possibly have been used by man.
Click to expand...
irishpatrick said:
Not at all, they did not claim that UV is the only way the Shroud receive its image–they just noted that UV could do that.
Click to expand...
Then this experiment is effectively useless, save for the handful of methods they were able to rule out through failure to reproduce the image, and we don’t quite have cause for celebration yet.

I suspect that your guys’ interpretation of the conclusion isn’t correct given the plethora of article titles out there (including the very one used in the article linked to in this thread) which read something along the lines of “Scientist prove that Shroud Could Not Have Been Faked!” This is, of course, the invalid logic I was pointing to, which may or may not be the fault of the researchers themselves. I suspect that it’s just shoddy journalism as is often the case in scientific reporting.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Then this experiment is effectively useless, save for the handful of methods they were able to rule out through failure to reproduce the image, and we don’t quite have cause for celebration yet.

I suspect that your guys’ interpretation of the conclusion isn’t correct given the plethora of article titles out there (including the very one used in the article linked to in this thread) which read something along the lines of “Scientist prove that Shroud Could Not Have Been Faked!” This is, of course, the invalid logic I was pointing to, which may or may not be the fault of the researchers themselves. I suspect that it’s just shoddy journalism as is often the case in scientific reporting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I doubt the researchers had anything to do with the title, which I agree is inaccurate.

I agree there is no cause for celebration and it seems the researchers are NOT celebrating. However, of all the many methods various researchers have use in their attempts to recreate the Shroud’s image, at least in this case the researchers have shown that UV can make such an image. Of course, that does not mean another method (that has not been found yet) was not employed.

What this research does mean is that the list of possible methods to make that image is being reduced–and THAT is important. If one day it turns out that UV was the source, then at that time researchers will have to try to determine where a powerful enough source of UV (at the proper concentration and focus), came from.

Meanwhile, the Shroud remains a relic of faith.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Then this experiment is effectively useless, save for the handful of methods they were able to rule out through failure to reproduce the image, and we don’t quite have cause for celebration yet.

I suspect that your guys’ interpretation of the conclusion isn’t correct given the plethora of article titles out there (including the very one used in the article linked to in this thread) which read something along the lines of “Scientist prove that Shroud Could Not Have Been Faked!” This is, of course, the invalid logic I was pointing to, which may or may not be the fault of the researchers themselves. I suspect that it’s just shoddy journalism as is often the case in scientific reporting.
Click to expand...
It is not exactly useless because scientists have discovered a physical process that explains how the image, with its particular shade, color, and other characteristics, was produced. But unfortunately for the skeptics, the agnostics, the atheists, and all the enemies of the Church, the process that the scientists discovered is not something that could easily be done by a forger (since it would require a technology that could produce 34 Trillion watts of energy - according to the news video). On the other hand, no other similar process is known that could explain how these details appeared on the cloth. So, the new discovery just added more weight in favor of those who piously believe that our Lord’s risen body itself was the one that did it. JMHO, unless you have a better explanation.
 
The funny thing is, that Atheists will pick apart stories like this, yet believe in:
  1. Bigfoot, Hell yea dude! There is big furry mean bear-men in those woods!!
  2. Aliens obductions, Of course!
  3. Chupacabra, those are some mean and sneaky foes!!
  4. secret ‘bottom less holes’, miles and miles deep… but noone wants to divulge their location
and whatever else Art Bell/George Noory can come up with…

BUT belief in a person who came to earth to love and bring peace to all, and you get --OMGz!! YOU PEOLE ARE SOOOO STOOPID!! WHY ARE YOU ALLOWED TO BREED! HURRRRR!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top