otseng wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:14 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:55 am
If one wishes to propose natural, non-human processes, they've got a footing in rational thought.
Non-natural explanations are also rational, provided they are evidential and logical, which I have consistently provided.
We'll have to leave your argument in this matter for the observer to decide. I'm certainly not convinced there's a non-natural explanation.
This image is certainly not a case of pereiodolia, so we all agree it ain't that.
There are some evidence that others have presented that I consider to be potentially pareidolia, so those evidence I will not be presenting.
Agreed. It strikes me as more.
Non-natural involvement would be off if one can prove the supernatural realm does not exist. And that cannot be done.
Just as the burden lies with those who propose the supernatural realm does exist. Thus far I've seen no reason to conclude it does.
As acknowledged by even the shroud skeptics, it also encodes three dimensional information.
I see nothing in the image that indicates it was formed in 3D.
The gap at the top of the head, at best, indicates the cloth wasn't touching, but that doesn't change the two dimensional aspect.
That's like saying the cloth wrapping the football would not be touching the tip of the football. That's highly unlikely as when you wrap anything, it would make contact at the point where it's pulled over.
You seem to be arguing there shouldn't be that space. Can you fill out this idea for me?
Well, I'm certainly willing to be classified with cosmologists and physicists as being "goofy". But we are certainly not being irrational.
To clarify, I said the ideas were goofy, not the folks. Unless you're a father, then it's kind of a thing to be goofy here and there.
I think it's your conclusions that are irrational. I couldn't honestly call you an irrational person.
I'm not an art professional, so I wouldn't know either. But the art professionals would know. And what we find is there is practically zilch mentioned about the TS from art professionals. So the art professionals do not treat the TS as artwork.
I'm not bound to what others consider, but to my own conclusions.
But what we do see instead is the TS is the most scientifically analyzed artifact. Scientists treat the TS as another object that can be empirically analyzed. This observation alone shows the TS is not artwork, but an actual body was crucified, dead, and buried in a shroud.
The Mona Lisa can also be empirically analyzed.
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that a body was ever laid upon, within, or among this cloth.
The TS displays all the visual cues of human involvement. Its technical skill is about right in line with the time of its 'finding'.
No idea what you are referring to. All the features on the shroud are really a mystery. We have many theories, but we have no complete explanation for any features of the shroud.
I'm referring to what we should expect given the state of knowledge of anatomy and portraiture of the time of its finding.
I do agree there are competing hopthesi, but contend the most rational one is human involvement.
In this entire thread, I have only assumed the Bible needs to be accepted like any other historical text, no less and no more. And what we see is the evidence from archaeology, geology, cosmology, and now the TS confirm the claims of the Bible.
Except the part where the person involved is claimed to've been some supernatural entity borne of a married virgin, and various other sense assaulting claims or attributes.
If the Bible can't be trusted for that bit, why should we expect it to be trusted for this bit of cloth?
The evidence indicates there was never a supernatural entity as described in the Bible, so there could never be this Jesus character to've been bundled up within this cloth.
Further, we have no images to compare, and perhaps more importantly, no blood to compare.
6. This image is produced as a product of supernatural, extra natural, or some genie blinking her eyes phenomenon heretofore undocumented in the entire history of human records
If that's where the evidence leads to, then there's nothing wrong to come to that conclusion.
It don't, so there is.
That ain't even counting the many other biblical claims that puts that entire document to question.
This is the number one claim of Christians. Everything else stands or falls on the claim of Jesus being crucified and resurrected.
That might be the case for Christians. For me, I look at the text as a whole, and realize it's full of holes.
That said, I don't doubt folks might find themselves the target of a crucifying. I just challenge the claim they can hop back up after being killed there in among the process.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.