Miracle of the Shroud III - Revenge of the Cloth

Sideroxylon · Sep 6, 2015

While waiting, where is the direct evidence of a 2000 yo date you have claimed to have?

Jabba · Sep 6, 2015

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

abaddon · Sep 6, 2015

SexMe says this:

SezMe said:
To be honest, Jabba, I am greatly disappointed. You made a start in #1719 in which you stated part of your correct next step then offered to complete that line of argument. I want you to do that: Complete the argument YOU posted in #1719.

Your red commentary in #1769 is NOT an argument. It is commentary, not a combination of ICs plus logic which leads to the UC.

Once again, Jabba, your next step is to post: a combination of ICs (which, for the sake of the argument, we are tentatively assuming to be true) plus logic which leads to the UC.

Please do that Jabba. I know you can.

Jabba does the opposite.

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

John Jones · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

Don't forget to pull out that undocumented history.

Sideroxylon · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

The van broke down? It's a bit runny? Never mind, I like my direct evidence of a 2000 yo shroud runny. Fetch hither the direct evidence! Hand it over with all speed!

zooterkin · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
- Guess I need to slow down again, and take one step at a time.

That would be speeding up, not slowing down.

Donn · Sep 6, 2015

So much business inside the private Jabba pan on the larger scale which has long tilted to reality.

Mojo · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

Jabba, what SezMe is asking you to do is to show how your "interim conclusions", if true, support your ultimate conclusion; in the instance you are citing here your task is to show how blood on the shroud is evidence for authenticity, and not merely consistent with it.

Mojo · Sep 6, 2015

John Jones said:
Don't forget to pull out that undocumented history.

Just try not to think about where he's pulling it from.

Craig4 · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

I take it then that you've not done a lot more believing in the Shroud than studying it. This is your thing right? Why can't you just rattle it off for us?

ferd burfle · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
SezMe,
- Guess I need to slow down again, and take one step at a time.
- My ultimate conclusion is that the scales tilt towards authenticity -- i.e., the shroud is probably authentic. This is what I'm trying to show.
- Do you accept that as my ultimate goal?

Jabba, I was tempted to go for the cheap jibe "if you go any slower, you'll be going backward". Then I realized that you go backward all the time. You spew the very same list of debunked ideas you call evidence that you posted way back in the first pages of the first thread.

I also note you are trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to make the goal authenticity rather than showing how your ICs lead to a conclusion the cloth is 2000yo. You like authenticity because it's a much broader subject that gives you a lot more wiggle room.

Mojo · Sep 6, 2015

ferd burfle said:
I also note you are trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to make the goal authenticity rather than showing how your ICs lead to a conclusion the cloth is 2000yo. You like authenticity because it's a much broader subject that gives you a lot more wiggle room.

His evidence that the shroud is about 2000 years old is that it is authentic and therefore must be that old (and all the evidence that says it isn't must be wrong). His evidence that it is authentic is his "interim conclusions". Unfortunately he has yet to establish either that his interim conclusions are true or that, if they are true, they lead to the conclusion that it is authentic.

John Jones · Sep 6, 2015

Mojo said:
His evidence that the shroud is about 2000 years old is that it is authentic and therefore must be that old (and all the evidence that says it isn't must be wrong). His evidence that it is authentic is his "interim conclusions". Unfortunately he has yet to establish either that his interim conclusions are true or that, if they are true, they lead to the conclusion that it is authentic.

Jabba, look at the highlighted part above. Your logic is non-extant. Since the day you first posted here, you have met no credible standard of evidence I've ever heard of

Maybe you'd have better luck with a Judicium Dei
http://www.bartleby.com/81/9342.html

Gawd knows you have gotten precisely nowhere these last 3+ years with your idea of Truly Effective Debate^[TM].

SezMe · Sep 6, 2015

Jabba said:
SezMe,
- Guess I need to slow down again, and take one step at a time.
- My ultimate conclusion is that the scales tilt towards authenticity -- i.e., the shroud is probably authentic. This is what I'm trying to show.
- Do you accept that as my ultimate goal?

Ultimate, yes. Proximate, no.

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

Jabba, at one point you agreed to follow my guidance as we move this process forward (I'm too lazy to find the link now, but if you want me to, I'll dig it up). Nowhere have I suggested that you go rutting around in a haystack for those issues. I have been absolutely clear on what you are to do next. I would greatly appreciate it if you would proceed on that path.

Now, I would be quite happy to restate why this particular path is important if you would like me to do so - if that would help you focus on the next step.

ferd burfle · Sep 6, 2015

Mojo said:
His evidence that the shroud is about 2000 years old is that it is authentic and therefore must be that old (and all the evidence that says it isn't must be wrong). His evidence that it is authentic is his "interim conclusions". Unfortunately he has yet to establish either that his interim conclusions are true or that, if they are true, they lead to the conclusion that it is authentic.

Thanks for the correction. I'll confess sometimes this thread is just one big muddle for me and I lose track of the bidding.

John Jones · Sep 6, 2015

SezMe said:
Ultimate, yes. Proximate, no.

Jabba, at one point you agreed to follow my guidance as we move this process forward (I'm too lazy to find the link now, but if you want me to, I'll dig it up). Nowhere have I suggested that you go rutting around in a haystack for those issues. I have been absolutely clear on what you are to do next. I would greatly appreciate it if you would proceed on that path.

Now, I would be quite happy to restate why this particular path is important if you would like me to do so - if that would help you focus on the next step.

Pardon my interjection, but it seems perfectly clear to everybody but Jabba what you are asking him to do: Demonstrate how his intermediate conclusions lead to an ultimate conclusion that the shroud is authentic.

A casual observer could understand this, but not Jabba - no matter how many dozens of times it is patiently explained.

MRC_Hans · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba, perhaps I can explain in a different way:

You have stated a series of points.

You are claiming that these form a chain of arguments that lead to ... a preponderance of evidence ... tilt the scales ... whatever, for authenticy.

What SezMe is now asking you to do is to provide logical argument for each link that it actually IS part of such a chain.

For example, the presense of blood: This argument is NOT part of the chain to authenticy, as blood would be available for a faker. It also does not weaken those who claim that the shroud was painted, for these reasons:

1) Blood could have been used as paint.
2) The features that are NOT depicting blood stains (the figure) could still be painted.

So we can strike "real blood" from your chain, as this does not support authenticy more than it supports fake.

Once we are left with a chain of arguments that truely lead towards authenticy, THEN comes to work of providing EVIDENCE for each link.

Obviously, this approach is effective, because it saves us all the trouble of arguing about points that have little or no relevance for the basic question.

Is that better?

Hans

Squeegee Beckenheim · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba said:
- Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

No, don't do that. Instead continue with the discussion that you asked for with SezMe, in the manner in which you've agreed to have that discussion.

You keep saying that one of your problems is that you keep getting distracted. Don't let yourself get distracted. Continue your discussion with SezMe, in the manner in which you've agreed to have that discussion.

Present the arguments and logic which demonstrate how your interim conclusions lead to your ultimate conclusion, in making an argument FOR authenticity.

Aepervius · Sep 7, 2015

MRC_Hans said:
Jabba, perhaps I can explain in a different way:

You have stated a series of points.

You are claiming that these form a chain of arguments that lead to ... a preponderance of evidence ... tilt the scales ... whatever, for authenticy.

What SezMe is now asking you to do is to provide logical argument for each link that it actually IS part of such a chain.

For example, the presense of blood: This argument is NOT part of the chain to authenticy, as blood would be available for a faker. It also does not weaken those who claim that the shroud was painted, for these reasons:

1) Blood could have been used as paint.
2) The features that are NOT depicting blood stains (the figure) could still be painted.

So we can strike "real blood" from your chain, as this does not support authenticy more than it supports fake.

Once we are left with a chain of arguments that truely lead towards authenticy, THEN comes to work of providing EVIDENCE for each link.

Obviously, this approach is effective, because it saves us all the trouble of arguing about points that have little or no relevance for the basic question.

Is that better?

Hans

It has been told to him dozen (hundreds by now?) times that blood neither support authenticity nor discredit medieval origin.

I expect your brave attempt to hit the same wall as those before : he will simply answer you that HE feels it tilt the scale even if we do not.

ETA :In an way it is a good summary to the previous many years of groundhog day we lived thru : he simply state that something he feels tilt the scale he is pointed out that it does not because there are alternative explanation (like the blood) he ignore us then then he do a fringe reset later and present the argument again.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher:

Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Peter i · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba said:
....
- My ultimate conclusion is that the scales tilt towards authenticity -- i.e., the shroud is probably authentic. This is what I'm trying to show.
......

No, you can conclude based on evidence or valid arguments. What you have done so far is nothing along those lines.

What you have done is:

the_core_of_Jabba said:
....
I really, really want this medieval forgery to be authentic-- i.e., I'll ignore the plethora of well established arguments against it, and keep desperately trying to produce just a sliver of a proof for it. This is what I'm trying to show, and I don't care that I've already failed time and time again, just like all the other sindologists have.
......

catsmate · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba said:
My claim is that when adding up all the different evidence, the scales tilt towards authenticity.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
- Our (first) basic problem (I think) is that I haven't explained well enough how my different bits of so-called "evidence" tilt the scale and support authenticity.
No. The problem is with you refusing to show the evidence that you claim supports authenticity.

Put up or shut up.

Jabba said:
4. In fact, there is significant evidence for the existence of what we now call supernatural.

Rubbish.

Jabba said:
5. Science has often been wrong in the past.

Irrelevant. Religion was, and is, generally wrong.

Jabba said:
6. Quantum physics is undermining “naturalism” with spooky findings.

Untrue. You have no idea what quantum mechanics is about do you?

Jabba said:
7. Skeptics place too much faith in human intelligence.
- The basic point in these bits of evidence is that except for the carbon dating the major argument against authenticity is that it seems to require what we would call a supernatural event. My claim is that there are various possible scenarios that solve that problem. Take away the negative weight of supernatural, and the tilt is totally different.

Rubbish.

Jabba said:
8. Jesus probably did exist.

Unsupported assertion.

Jabba said:
9. The authorities could not find his body

Unsupported assertion.

Jabba said:
10. They were extremely motivated to find it.

Unsupported assertion.

Jabba said:
- In addition, all the apostles were persecuted – and, all but one were martyred -- for their continued proselytizing.
- Christianity spread quickly right away.
- In a sense, it ultimately shaped the whole world.
- These suggest that Jesus was in fact resurrected – and, they add significant weight to the positive side of the scales.

A whole bunch of unsupported assertions. And an absolutely nonsensical assertion that this somehow supports the resurrection of Jesus.

Jabba said:
11. The carbon dating of the shroud is suspect

No actually outside the fevered imaginations of shroudies it's not at all suspect.

Jabba said:
12. The stains are real blood.

There is absolutely no evidence for this claim.

Jabba said:
- McCrone’s testimony is weakened, if not overruled/rescinded – and his testimony has been a major weight in the negative pan also.

No. You, and your fellow shroudies, have completely failed to discredit McCrone's work despite your pitiful attempts to slander him.

Jabba said:
13. The blood is human.

Unsupported assertion

Jabba said:
14. The blood is type AB – typical for the mid-east, but a-typical for Europe.

Absolute garbage fabricated by a con-man to fleece the gullible.

Jabba said:
- Supportive of authenticity.

Except it's a lie. Like so much of your "evidence".

Jabba said:
15. The size and shape of the stains are appropriate for their locations and the Jesus situation.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
16. The stains are appropriately arterial and venous.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
- Again, sounds like an imprint of an actual body.

Except it's not true.

Jabba said:
17. There is no significant paint on the shroud.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
- McCrone’s testimony is further weakened, and d’Arci’s testimony is withdrawn. More weight subtracted from the negative pan.
- More reason to think that the image is the imprint of an actual body.

Except McCrone's work stand scrutiny. Unlike the nonsense you're peddling.

Jabba said:
18. The little bit of paint is not peculiar to the image.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
19. Artists of the past were sometimes allowed to touch the shroud with their paintings.

Unsupported assertion.

Jabba said:
20. Undocumented history seems to fit.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
21. Somehow, the image has to be an imprint of a dead body.

Why? Because youneed it to be so?

Jabba said:
22. An artist would have to be a genius.

Nope. The shroud is easily reproduced by non-artists, and has been several times.

Jabba said:
23. He would have to be a psychopath also.

Rubbish. You don't actually know what "psychopath" means, do you?

Jabba said:
24. And did not leave any other examples of his prowess.

Unsupported assertion

Jabba said:
25. STURP couldn’t explain or debunk the shroud.

STURP were almost without exception believers. They didn't try to explain the shroud.

Jabba said:
26. The shroud is unique.

Nope, there were and are numerous such fakes.

Jabba said:
27. The image became much more obvious in the negative.

Untrue.

Jabba said:
- Interesting, and more reason to think that an artist didn’t do it.

But yet again your point is simple untrue.

Jabba said:
28. Image had the right markings and stains.

For what? Certainly not for a real human body.

Jabba said:
29. It has some non-traditional, but seemingly correct, markings.

Jabba said:
- More reason to reject this as an artist’s handiwork.

Why?

Jabba said:
30. The large majority of peer reviewed papers support authenticity.

A blatant lie.

Jabba said:
- (I’ll need to further research this claim.)

Right....

Jabba said:
31. McCrone’s testimony can be discounted.

Only by the pathetically desperate god botherers.

Jabba said:
32. D’Arci’s testimony can also be discarded.

Ditto.

Jabba said:
33. The main reason to think that the shroud is not authentic is because it’s unique – there are no other shrouds bearing such an image.

A lie. The reason to assume the shroud is a fake is that all the evidence indicates this.

Jabba said:
- Which suggests that it’s “supernatural” – but, epistemologically speaking, we shouldn’t reject “supernatural” out of hand. See above.

Rubbish.

Jabba said:
34. The image contains appropriate coins.

Complete nonsense.

Jabba said:
35. The image contains appropriate flowers.

Also nonsense

Jabba said:
36. The shroud is complete with appropriate pollen.

Complete rubbish. I see you're still parroting the lies of the convicted fraudster Frei.

Jabba said:
- How could a 14th century artist do all that?

They didn't.

Jabba said:
37. No current scientist or artist can fully duplicate the image.

A lie. It's been replicated several times.

Jabba said:
- If we still can’t do it, how could an artist of the 14th century do it?

Because you're ignoring reality?

Jabba said:
- Now, I'd like to address one reservation/objection (or two), to my claims, at a time. What would you like me to address? I could address either the evidence or the reasoning.

Where's the evidence you claim to have?

Until then:

Filippo Lippi · Sep 7, 2015

Never mind the quality of the debate, look how contentious the shroud is! 1822 posts

Slowvehicle · Sep 7, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
Never mind the quality of the debate, look how contentious the shroud is! 1822 posts

X 3...

John Jones · Sep 7, 2015

Isn't it time for another fringe reset? It's been two days since the last time.

Filippo Lippi · Sep 7, 2015

Perhaps the thread can only end when we've all had a turn at being Jabba's patsy?

Filippo Lippi · Sep 7, 2015

Which isn't to denigrate any of the people who have tried to engage honestly with Jabba, it's purely a comment on him. Have we forgotten that he developed this MO on another forum before he perfected it here?

John Jones · Sep 7, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
Which isn't to denigrate any of the people who have tried to engage honestly with Jabba, it's purely a comment on him. Have we forgotten that he developed this MO on another forum before he perfected it here?

Another forum with few critical thinkers. This MO hasn't been perfected here, IMO, but it certainly has been done to death here.

I'll even take my turn in the barrel when SezMe has served his time.

Giordano · Sep 7, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
Perhaps the thread can only end when we've all had a turn at being Jabba's patsy?

Speaking only for myself, I think that "goal" was achieved long ago.

godless dave · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba, in what way is blood on the shroud evidence of authenticity?

Maurice Ledifficile · Sep 7, 2015

godless dave said:
Jabba, in what way is blood on the shroud evidence of authenticity?

By tilting Teh Scales^®, duh.

John Jones · Sep 7, 2015

godless dave said:
Jabba, in what way is blood on the shroud evidence of authenticity?

We all know that blood on the CIQ is not proof of authenticity. It could have come from anywhere or anyone on Earth +/- the time it took to harvest the blood and apply it.

turingtest · Sep 7, 2015

Giordano said:
Speaking only for myself, I think that "goal" was achieved long ago.

John Jones said, above, that Jabba has gotten nowhere at all in three years of Truly Effective Debate- and I have to wonder if that wasn't the goal all along (and to take everyone engaging him nowhere with him). I've said that I think Jabba is gaming, but I think it's also possible that this is a tactic of faith. After all, faith is to be stood on, not really debated; if you never actually engage on specific points, you never run the risk of having your ground cut out from under you. (Shrug) Gaming or faith, the idea is the same- debate by attrition, where your opponents, finally, leave you to a faith you've fortified or a game you've won by deflecting instead of acknowledging and honestly answering challenges.

John Jones · Sep 7, 2015

turingtest said:
John Jones said, above, that Jabba has gotten nowhere at all in three years of Truly Effective Debate- and I have to wonder if that wasn't the goal all along (and to take everyone engaging him nowhere with him). I've said that I think Jabba is gaming, but I think it's also possible that this is a tactic of faith. After all, faith is to be stood on, not really debated; if you never actually engage on specific points, you never run the risk of having your ground cut out from under you. (Shrug) Gaming or faith, the idea is the same- debate by attrition, where your opponents, finally, leave you to a faith you've fortified or a game you've won by deflecting instead of acknowledging and honestly answering challenges.

Yes, but Jabba has not only claimed that his point is to convince the lurkers, but also that he won the debate by reason of his interlocutors failing to respond to his nonsense logic and lack of evidence.

This topic was nearly dead when Jabba said he was going to apply for the JREF MDC and use his threads as proof.

Guess what: He's presented the same fringe reset again and again, but little else. His erstwhile allies don't even come to his rescue anymore.

Filippo Lippi · Sep 7, 2015

John Jones said:
This topic was nearly dead when Jabba said he was going to apply for the JREF MDC and use his threads as proof.

I think you are confusing this pile of nonsense with his proof of immortality through misrepresenting Baysian logic nonsense.

Tinyal · Sep 7, 2015

Speaking as a 'lurker', let me just say that this abomination of a thread has taught me several new things about how science and critical thinking works, especially some of the step-by-step replies to Jabba. It's certainly not a wasted effort, as I suspect others have learned something as well.
As for Jabba, I am quite sure nothing will ever convince him his 'techniques' - his very thought processes - are not only wrong, but are unproductive in terms of ever intersecting with 'right'.
It's another example (IMHO) of what fear of death will do to a person, as it drives them further and further into a closed mindset.
Thanks for your (apparently unending) efforts guys and gals!

Belz... · Sep 7, 2015

Jabba said:
SezMe,
- Guess I need to slow down again

No you need to speed up and produce direct evidence for the age of the Shroud NOW.

Until then, I'll be digging into my haystack for the needles (forgotten evidence) about (for) the presence of blood on the shroud. One step at a time.

Yeah and you can skip that step since you've been told multiple times that it's irrelevant.

I really have to ask: do you suffer from a mental condition? Not trying to be nasty, but if you're entirely honest here, I don't think you're even capable of participating in a debate like this.

dropzone · Sep 7, 2015

Not sure why I'm wading into this, but maybe Jabba doesn't have me on ignore yet.

Jabba said:
4. In fact, there is significant evidence for the existence of what we now call supernatural.
5. Science has often been wrong in the past.
6. Quantum physics is undermining “naturalism” with spooky findings.
7. Skeptics place too much faith in human intelligence.
...
8. Jesus probably did exist.
9. The authorities could not find his body
10. They were extremely motivated to find it.

4. No, there isn't. Cite?
5. So what? It has tended towards being right.
6. Which has nothing to do with the topic and is simply another Wooish copout. Anyway, it's "spooky" as in "counterintuitive," not as in "supernatural."
7. Same with this. Obvious list padding to make it look more profound.
8. I'll give you that one, but no further than your exact words. "Probably existed" does not equal "God."
9. and 10. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that these are are true.

Craig4 · Sep 8, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
Never mind the quality of the debate, look how contentious the shroud is! 1822 posts

I wouldn't call one lone holdout contentious. Perhaps if he provided evidence there might be some contention but if he were going to, that would have happened by now.

Aepervius · Sep 8, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
I think you are confusing this pile of nonsense with his proof of immortality through misrepresenting Baysian logic nonsense.

(*groan*) don't remind him of the existence of that thrice-cursed-thread !

John Jones · Sep 8, 2015

Filippo Lippi said:
I think you are confusing this pile of nonsense with his proof of immortality through misrepresenting Baysian logic nonsense.

Could be. It's hard to tell one steaming pile of Jabban nonsense from another after 3+ years.

I apologize for my mistaken opinions.

Miracle of the Shroud III - Revenge of the Cloth

Featherless biped

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Featherless biped

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Philosopher

Mostly harmless

Mostly harmless

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Mostly harmless

Penultimate Amazing

post-pre-born

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Non credunt, semper verificare

Critical Thinker

No longer the 1

Philosopher

Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Great Dalmuti

Lost in translation

Penultimate Amazing

Mistral, mistral wind...

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Thinker

Fiend God

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Non credunt, semper verificare

Penultimate Amazing