The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

[Kindnessmatters]

I have experienced them but werr I cynical I might have dismissed them. I do believe God works in our lives. Here are some examples.

56 years ago my father went on a business trip by car. He suddenly decided to turn around and go home, feeling he was needed at home. He learned on arrival that my sister, an infant at the time, had just passed away. My mother needed him. My sister had not appeared to be ill but had an undetected heart defect.

In my own life, I was very strained financially and out of nowhere, not asking for help, a loved one who I presumed not to have any assets, insisted on gifting me with payoff of a very major debt. I had been praying for answers to financial gridlock as I was working and had cut as many expenses as possible, but was stuck. This gift was like unclogging a drain…it allowed me to move forward.

I am now unemployed. I believe things will work out. I have much to worry about and am looking daily for work, but I credit my faith with being free of anxiety in this situation. I have just enough worry to.motivate positive action.

 

[MPat]

I’m not frustrated, I’m just surprised. Yes, I assumed there would be documentation of some kind. I think it’s a reasonable expectation for miraculous claims.

Well, why do you think it is a reasonable expectation?

Would you not also be skeptical of Hindu claims? If their priests stated they investigated but had no documents to show it, would you just accept that or would you remain skeptical?

This experiment has been performed. I just did not care all that much. Maybe something supernatural (most likely demonic) happened, maybe it is a fraud, maybe it is a mistake. None of those options change much (in fact, the first one was mostly incompatible with the doctrine it is supposed to support), thus I do not see why I should choose one of them.

No, just being sceptical “by default” is neither reasonable nor very common.

I’m not abnormal for this!

Are you sure that is what “normal” people proclaim?

 

[Pattylt]

Well, why do you think it is a reasonable expectation?

Because I think most reasonable people want to see documentation of the investigation of anything that defies the laws of science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If word of mouth is enough and faith fills in the rest for you, that’s fine. Most people require a bit more…in that, I’m normal…I’m like most people.

Thanks for discussing but I have no more to say here.

 

[Catfinger77]

Use the Google.

 

[MPat]

Because I think most reasonable people want to see documentation of the investigation of anything that defies the laws of science.

That is silly for several reasons.

First, something tells me that you are not really in position to know what “most reasonable people” would “want”. “I think” is not nearly good enough.

Second, even if someone wants specific evidence, it does not follow that it is likely to be available. Or even that it is possible. Or that it is reasonable to demand it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That looks like an extraordinary claim to me.

If word of mouth is enough and faith fills in the rest for you, that’s fine. Most people require a bit more…in that, I’m normal…I’m like most people.

It is the second post where you claim you are “normal”. Once again, have you often seen people you are willing to call “normal” to do so?

You keep claiming that you are “reasonable”, “normal”, “like most people”. That is not good for several reasons.

First, you are not in position to know that. For example, you do not know “most people” (and it is not certain that you know yourself all that well).

Second, as we have seen, those beliefs lead to expectations that do not match reality. That is not a good sign.

Third, such beliefs prevent you from learning. After all, here you had a learning opportunity, but you wasted it, for to benefit from it you would have had to admit that you are imperfect, that you have something to improve.

Thus I would recommend that you would throw those beliefs away.

 

[undead_rat]

The Shroud’s [image] . . .is probably a stain or an acid-burn. Possibly the stain was made by paint, later washed off, or possibly it was a wine- or even wood- stain. Or possibly vinegar, or malic or lactic acid, associated with an artist’s medium, could be responsible.

Your presentation of this “information” which you know to be false belies your assertion that you do not have an agenda to mislead people into believing that the Shroud is a fake. The image on the Shroud was found by legitimate scientific investigation to be formed by none of the methods that you have suggested.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

 

[AlNg]

miracles are a sign from God that validates the one true Church.

i don’t see how this is possible since miracles occur in non-Catholic religions.

 

[undead_rat]

There are no "required mathematical tests’ needed to interpret the information that all the measurements from all the different pieces of cloth tested all indicated a late medieval provenance.

Sir, your statement suggesting that carbon fourteen evidence does not require any analysis in order for it to be considered as indicative of a date is not correct. In fact, it is misleading to CAF participants, and I think that you are aware of this. The statistical analysis results of the carbon fourteen evidence must fall within certain parameters for the indication of a date to be found valid. The statistical analysis results of the Shroud’s C-14 evidence did not fall within the required parameters for that evidence to be found as indicating a date. I have provided the reference twice already. Your suggestion of “contamination” is just silly.

What the carbon fourteen evidence does suggest is that the Shroud was subjected to a neutron radiation event that enhanced the carbon fourteen content of the linen. Your disregard for the this idea again proves your prejudicial attitude toward the most holy relic of Christianity.
You accuse me of “calumny,” but the real calumny is your continued and unrelenting attack on the Holy Shroud which was bought with pain and blood to assist us in our faith.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

[…] “information” which you know to be false […] Your suggestion of “contamination” is just silly […] Your disregard for the this idea […] your continued and unrelenting attack […]

Few discussions are enhanced by personal abuse. There are legitimate differing views regarding the origin of the Shroud of Turin, supported by assertions of evidence which each person assesses for themselves as its credibility and strength. I do not find the evidence for authenticity adequate. I do find the evidence for a medieval origin credible and convincing. I hope I have explained clearly why, and will be happy to do so again if readers want. I hope I have done so without insulting anybody with a different view from mine.

If you can support your denigration of Ray Rogers’s Maillard reaction hypothesis, or explain the “statistical analysis” which refutes the medieval date implied by every one of the measurements obtained by the radiocarbon tests, then please do so. If not, then we must agree to disagree and let our readers draw their own conclusions.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

You are not going to benefit much, unless you trace those reasons back to the one that describes what is wrong with you in some way, something you can then try to improve. Maybe you make a false assumption, maybe you lack some skill that would have been useful.

Do you know, that struck home. I have often attempted to calm frustrations in myself by asking what might be rectified within myself (which I might be able to achieve) rather than how to change the world to fit me (which I might not). So I thank you for that.

There are many words that might describe the process of just dismissing any miracle claim out of hand, but “difficult” does not seem to be one of them.

Ah, no. I did not think it would be difficult for an agnostic to dismiss miracles out of hand, I thought it might be difficult for an agnostic to accept them, in the absence of verifiable information even as to the events. But perhaps if he thought of them in the way you seem to be advising, he might find it easier.

 

[undead_rat]

If you can support your denigration of Ray Rogers’s Maillard reaction hypothesis, or explain the “statistical analysis” which refutes the medieval date implied by every one of the measurements obtained by the radiocarbon tests, then please do so.

The “maillard reaction” hypothesis is the same as Vignon’s “vaporgraphic print” theory which was made way back in 1902. These ideas were considered and discarded by STURP’s in depth analysis after the 1978 gathering of data. Even if a supernatural element is added to the maillard theory, it still does not compute because the image on the Shroud contains the images of teeth and skeletal features which the maillard reaction would not be able to account for.

I have explained why a proper statistical analysis refutes the assignment of a date based on that evidence and have provided the reference as well.
Of course the Shroud’s C-14 evidence “implies” a medieval date, but “implied” is not the same as “proven,” and that is why the real scientists subject their C-14 data to statistical analysis. To be fair, the British Museum, with its prejudicial attitude towards the Shroud, made the same mistake that you are making. It reached a conclusion before making the statistical analysis and then fudged that analysis to make it fit.
As I have pointed out (and provided the reference to) that premature act was criticized by none other that the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

The alternate explanation for why the Shroud’s linen contains more C-14 than would be expected of a 2000 year old relic was suggested by Harvard’s Prof. Phillips in 1988. The British Museum, with its prejudicial attitude, refused to notice that the Shroud’s C-14 data actually fits the the theory of a neutron radiation event much better.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Well, thank you for trying.

I don’t think the possibility of a Maillard reaction specifically was considered by STuRP before Ray Rogers suggested it long after the 1978 investigation. It is true that Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, by both Larry Schwalbe and Ray Rogers, is not in favour of a vaporographic hypothesis, but clearly Rogers changed his mind after some years and more investigation of his own.

The idea that the Shroud is in some sense an X-Ray is very much a fringe hypothesis even amongst authenticists, and to my mind the evidence for it is not credible. In particular the alleged definition of the teeth can easily be seen to be due to irregularities in the warp threads. There is also considerable inconsistency as to the supposed source and collimation of the supposed X-Rays, which is at considerable variance with the hypothesised source and collimation of any UV or IR radiation, and the lack of collimation of the alleged neutron radiation.

“implied” is not the same as “proven,”

Well said. Scientists do not use words like “proven.”

real scientists subject their C-14 data to statistical analysis

They did indeed. For example Marco Riani and Anthony Atkinson, who detected the slight chronological gradient along the length of the sample, did not think that their findings refuted a medieval date, and neither does Tristan Casabianca, who specifically says: “Our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out.” Even Remi Van Haelst, who was the most vociferous critic of the British Museum’s statistics, said that “Any date between those limits 504-859 can be the TRUE date.”

There has been some sensible discussion as to why there is a chronological gradient along the sample, but no statistical test “refutes the assignment of a [medieval] date.”

The opinions of Cardinal Bertone are not based on knowledge but on hope.

As explained by Oxford’s Prof. Hedges in the letter published Nature immediately after that of Harvard’s Prof. Phillips, the British Museum, did not “refuse to notice” “the theory of a neutron radiation event.” They did notice it, and found it wanting.

 

[undead_rat]

Prof. Rogers did not postulate a supernatural intervention in his theory that the Shroud’s image was the result of a Maillard reaction, but a vertical collimation of the corpse’s vapors would be a necessary supposition to account for the definition. The same can be said of the proton radiation hypothesis. No side image of the corpse is found on the Shroud.
No one said anything about “X-rays,” it is vertically collimated proton radiation that is hypothesized. Skeletal features and especially front teeth are seen on the Shroud’s image. Ancient iconographers mistook the teeth for chapped lips and that is why the St. Catherine’s Pantocrator icon shows that feature.

The illegitimacy of the assignment of any date at all to the Shroud’s C-14 data has been stated, and I do not know why I have to keep repeating this reference.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-setting-for-the-radiocarbon-dating-of-the-Marinelli/a53f888576ac1eefc3939ac3f6012b9569f2ae43?p2df

PG. 27-28:
Engineer Ernesto Brunati points out that with a chi-square value of 6.4, the significance level is 4.07, not 5. But in reality the average of Tucson is 646+/- 17; with this value the chi-squared becomes 9.13 and the significance level drops to 1.04%, which are unacceptable values for the homogeneity of the measurements published. Brunati, who suspected a deliberate and manifest manipulation of the data, did not receive satisfactory answers from the British Museum and from the laboratories despite the letters sent them and the publication of numerous articles in the course of the years. Also Van Haelst did not have adequate answers to his questions. Jull admitted: "This is a bad level. Normally, with such a result, I make the measures again."
Brunati’s calculations were confirmed by two professors of Statistics at La Sapienza University of Rome, Livia Se Giovanni and Pierluigi Conti.

Hedges letter was sent prior to the Museum’s statistical analysis, and it said that, if a supernatural explanation had to be considered, then the Museum was wasting its time in this endeavor. NATURE said much the same thing in its review of Vignon’s 1902 book where it said that the idea that the Shroud was authentic was not something that needed to be taken seriously in a scientific publication.

Fanti stated that, if one insisted on assigning a date to the Shroud’s C-14 evidence it would be 1325 A.D., with the stipulation of an uncertainty factor of several thousand years. He concluded that the Shroud’s C-14 evidence was therefore scientifically meaningless as far a the assignment of a date was concerned.

Your insult to the Cardinal is not justified; He stated a fact: the verdict was decided even before performing the analyses.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Well, I’m afraid I disagree with most of that, but I’m not sure it’s worth reiterating why. Our readers have read both our descriptions of the evidence and our opinions of its value, and can no doubt make their own minds up. There are no images of teeth, the statistical anomaly of the radiocarbon dates does not detract from a medieval provenance, and there is no evidence that the British Museum, or anyone else, had ‘decided’ what the date was before the tests were carried out. I meant no disrespect to the good Cardinal; indeed, I am certain he would agree with my assessment of his opinion.

 

[AlNg]

The illegitimacy of the assignment of any date at all to the Shroud’s C-14 data has been stated

Would there be another problem also, namely, could the results depend on the section of he Shroud tested?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

could the results depend on the section of he Shroud tested?

Yes.

1. Bob Rucker speculates that the Resurrection involved the release of neutrons from a disintegrating body. These could react with the material of the cloth to enrich it in radiocarbon. The more radiocarbon, the younger appears the cloth. This effect would be huge in areas in close proximity to the body, and less the further the cloth was from the source of the emission. There is no evidence for this hypothesis.
2. Some contamination is difficult to remove completely from textiles, particularly oils of one kind or another. If the oil is from the ground (pitch or tar), then the contaminated area appears older than it really is, but if plant or animal derived it appears younger. Given that materials are cleaned as much as possible, this could only have a small effect on the apparent date of the substrate, but it may account for the minor discrepancy in the published dates.
3. Carbon monoxide is richer in radiocarbon than other organic substances. If the carbon from more modern carbon monoxide was somehow selectively incorporated into the material of the Shroud, it could appear younger in places where there was greatest absorption. Experiments to find out if this was possible have shown no such absorption.
4. The Shroud has been patched at different times, sewn to various backing cloths, and hemmed and stitched with different threads. Samples whose carbon derived wholly or partly from such material could produce dates unrepresentative of the original. There is no evidence that any such unrepresentative material was not removed from the test samples.

 

[undead_rat]

Would there be another problem also, namely, could the results depend on the section of he Shroud tested?

The piece of the Shroud that was subjected to C-14 testing was a thin strip that was cut into several sections. The testing revealed that the carbon fourteen content of each section became greater as the section became closer to the image. If a piece of the Shroud about six inches closer to the image was tested, it would read about 600 years younger, putting it into the 20th century. Even closer, and the C-14 testing would result in impossible future dates.
The comment that there is no evidence for Prof. Rucker’s theory of a neutron radiation event from a vanishing corpse is not correct. The !988 C-14 data is that evidence, and our resident modernist has admitted this in a previous post.

 

[JimG]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123940218130209621

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Not exactly. For a start a conditional is not evidence, and for a second the conditional suggested is not a corollary of the observation. This:

If a piece of the Shroud about six inches closer to the image was tested, it would read about 600 years younger,

is a guess, informed by an unwarranted extrapolation.

Certainly I agreed that if the radiocarbon content of the Shroud was found to increase in the manner described by Bob Rucker, successively towards its centre, and then decrease again from the centre outwards, that would be evidence for the enrichment suggested by the neutron radiation hypothesis, but there is no evidence that such a pattern exists.

 

[undead_rat]

Not true at all. The strip tested shows exactly that pattern, and the skeptic admitted this in a previous post.