How about someone crucified some poor guy and put an old cloth from the crusades on him? Hell, it's probably a Muslim!
Last edited:
A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Actually, this is hotly contested. A show on the history channel "The real face of Jesus?", and the wiki article and many sources cited in the wiki article say that the linin cloth in the area where the origial 1988 samples were taken is actually from a repair in the shroud, not from the original materal. The article also states:
"The technique used for producing the image is, according to W. McCrone, already described in a book about medieval painting published in 1847 by Charles Lock Eastlake ("Methods and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and Masters"). Eastlake describes in the chapter "Practice of Painting Generally During the XIVth Century" a special technique of painting on linen using tempera paint, which produces images with unusual transparent features—which McCrone compares to the image on the shroud.[112]
This hypothesis was declared to be unsound as the X-ray fluorescence examination, as well as infrared thermography, did not point out any pigment.[113][114][115] It was also found that 25 different solvents, among them water, do not reduce or sponge out the image.[116] The non-paint origin has been further claimed by Fourier transform of the image: common paintings show a directionality that is absent from the Turin Shroud.[117] "
SO, the date may be correct and it was made in a strange way. I personally think it's Jesus but could it be proven 100%, no way.
If you believe in God it is not so unreasonable. But, as you say in a future post since we don't know who Jesus was, how tall he was, what he looked like, ect, ect. It could just be some dude.
The only way to prove otherwise would be if the ONLY way to repoduce it was some exotic method that they would not have had available at the time (such as bombarding it with B-mesons or gamma rays, then xrays, then alpha particles, then gamma rays again.)
Then again, this may only prove the ancient aliens guy correct
If people believe in God on faith, why is this alleged evidence so important to them? I think that's a more interesting question.
For me it does not affect my faith, it would just be really cool. Honestly, for how it was made it is cool either way at this point.
So you would like it if there was empirical evidence for the Biblical story?
but then again, that would still not 'prove' that it was jesus..inference is not proof..
Then again, this may only prove the ancient aliens guy correct
the prob with aliens as God, it means that empirical proof of God does exist.
---
same as it is for atheist and the 'prove it'....validation..
What would it prove then? What would become more likely at that point, aliens or God cuz it sure as hell wouldn't have been made by people.
Hell we couldn't even bombard it with B-mesons now.
Of course I would! Is there any reason that I shouldn't?
the aliens are ourselves from the future where we had to live underground from the radiation, we had evolved to look like the little grey men of popularity..we discovered time travel and traveled back to try and influence events to a more reasonable outcome..jesus was a product of such influence,they had to recover the body, to erase any evidence of their influence..(hey..they are still human,so they can still be stupid ..)
:shrug:
lack of any evidence to the contrary makes it just as valid as anything else..
I thought it wasn't a question for science. But apparently theists love evidence when it supports their ideas and reject it when it doesn't. It's a little hypocritical.
But it's not the same! You guys say that God can't be tested in this way, that it's a matter of faith. That you have all the evidence you need with your experiences.
There is not so much direct evidence against God, as there is evidence that there may not need to be a God. There is a difference. As technology advances this may not be the case, but for now I see no science that disproves God, it only shows the mechnisims that God used to create our world of matter and space.
Before anyone wastes their time, they may want to know WHO the author is and IF they have any formal education in physics.
New Scientist did an interesting article on "Quantum Consciousness" last month. Quantum is just a type of math - it's not "owned" by Physicists
still qualifies for both parties..
faith is not based on validation, validation is our own humanity trying to give itself worth. validation SHOULD not have anything to do with faith.(our own humanity tends to make it so..)
No it doesn't! I wouldn't reject any reliable evidence for God, if there were any.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Many theists would disagree that proof should not supplement faith, however I think how good one is in being religious has nothing to do with proof.
when did we start talking about you?
Atheists love evidence when it supports their ideas and reject it when it doesn't.
see..applies to both sides..
No they don't. It doesn't apply at all. That's the difference between them.
@NM --
I don't know what you think an atheist is, but both Spidergoat and I are atheists and all we ask for from the theists is some fraking evidence. We've only been asking for about ten thousand years, and now that the theists have finally stopped killing us we think that it's about time that they produced some. Sadly, we've been disappointed at every turn.
I don't know what you think an atheist is, but both Spidergoat and I are atheists and all we ask for from the theists is some fraking evidence. We've only been asking for about ten thousand years, and now that the theists have finally stopped killing us we think that it's about time that they produced some. Sadly, we've been disappointed at every turn.