Not having followed this debate at all,  mostly due to its hellish volume, I find myself wondering (as I’m sure others have),  why you cling to an analysis that doesn’t support you hypothesis?
Seriously Jabba, if you want anyone with a shred of skepticism to acknowledge that piece of cloth as once being your god’s death-cloth, you’ll need  a test (available at any respectable lab)  that confirms it’s plausibility.  And allowing doubt on the tests already done,  which (I believe) concluded otherwise,  is an assumption I’ve yet to see justified.
 I guess my problem is that I don’t even see where you’re going  with this enormous use of bytes.  Even if you were to show that the cloth lay on a dead carpenter 2,000 years ago, it doesn’t suggest anything other than that; a carpenter died 2,000 years ago.  (I think that is an assumption you were allowed from the get-go).
- Thanks for joining in.
- As you can see, I've numbered and underlined several sections in your post.
- My claim is that in order to have any hope of "getting somewhere" in an argument, we need to slow down and keep narrowing our foci. This can be quite tedious -- but, my cutesy excuse is that slow and forward is much better than fast and circular (this latter being the nature of most debates). And here, by numbering, I'm trying to follow my own advice and itemizing the different aspects (of your post) over which -- for one reason or another -- I have a problem. Theoretically, this will allow me to better focus on one sub-issue (of your overall disagreement) at a time -- and hopefully, allow us to actually get somewhere in our debate -- albeit, slowly.
- I believe that in order to get anywhere in debate, we need to slow down and zoom in. That's what I've been trying to do on this forum and why my threads take up so much space.
- There. I've hereby dealt with #'s 1 & 9.
Reply With Quote
Deal with 8 and 10 and we'll take it from there.
I began this particular thread about the Shroud, because Steenkh (I think) had asked me to try and support the supernaturalistic nature of SOMEthing. And, at that time, I figured that my best bet might be the Shroud of Turin.
...To think that you’ve gone through a meticulous process of not allowing any assumptions and debating each sentence your opponents have written, when you’ve from the start have made a huge unwarranted assumption, namely that something supernatural could exist.
I would be much less opposed to your hypothesis if you started off by establishing that something supernatural can exist in the realm of reality. As nothing other than revelations suggests that there can be, it is fair to assume that there cannot. In this case, “the burden of plausibility“ lies on you...
- The following web page provides an introduction to my opinions re "magic" -- not quite "supernatural" -- but, it's more what I'm "talking about" than is "supernatural." http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php
- Also, I'm sure you'll disagree with my positions. However, they should give us some things a little more specific to address.
OK, so if I were to address the arguments you've made on that site, you would be open to debating them. (And not just stating that you believe so therefore, to you, things are so)?
- Sure -- but, as you can see, my time will be limited.
- I should warn you that I started such a thread awhile back, and the guys here pretty much gave up on me -- figuring that I was too hard-headed to listen...
- You can find that thread at http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3032.
(following an early link on the above thread)
1. Many of the “things” that we think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not readily fit into our naturalistic (physical/analytic) worldview... For instance
1.1. While consciousness may be the result of purely physical causes, consciousness, itself, is non-physical. (Think about it.)
Nope, consciousness itself is a purely physical system. I thought about it. How come you concluded otherwise?
- Just to point out the doubt in my own mind: I began the above quote with,
(Note that I'll be treating many of my conclusions below as fact. Not to worry -- I accept that these are only my current "beliefs" (however much I currently believe them). Just that saying, "it appears" over and over again doesn't flow very well.)
- Otherwise, let me begin to answer your question with a question of my own. Do you believe in "transcendence"?***