Jesus The Messiah Or Not .Com

Example Debates I've Had with Atheists
8/24/11
(I'm still experimenting with the layout)

- Sometimes, counsels will have to isolate the different sub-claims in the claim to which they are responding -- as their particular opponent may not have found that necessary.
- My best guess is that we should be “conservative” in our own scoring. But, that isn't easy, and my attempts below may reflect my difficulty. My current scoring shouldn't be taken too seriously.
- Where you see a score, it means that there have been no further responses to the particular sub-sub-issue -- and in most cases, that last post was made several months ago.
- I'm thinking of scoring as going from +3 to -3.
- The effect of one piece of evidence may be zero until it is linked to another piece. This adds some complexity to good scoring. Digits behind the decimal point will indicate the score of the claim when it is combined with the other necessary component(s).
- Keep in mind that the structure I'm currently suggesting is both tentative and tenuous.
- Since it isn't easy tracking stuff down over the 4 parts of my debate with the atheists, some of what follows will be paraphrase. This shouldn't matter, as I'm just trying to show what one of my current suggested formats will look like.
- The same goes for the clips I've added that I wish I had said at the time...
- I think that part of my problem in pulling this together is that my opponents were not always clear as to what, exactly, they were responding to.
- Note that I will be repeating claims and questions when there is more than one response to them.
- You'll see a lot of 1's in the presentation below as, for the most part, the two sides are not finding needs to address separate nuances separately...
- What follows is my beginning attempt to show the "cluttered" version...
- Below that is the "uncluttered" version of the same exchanges.
- The numbering in the cluttered version is pretty distracting, but I think it's useful, and we'll probably get used to it...

Cluttered Versions .

1. The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
1.1. Sources please?
1.1.1 There are a lot of seemingly credible (to me) scholars making that and similar claims. Google shroud+"most studied". [+.25]

1(again). The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
1.1. [above...]
1.2. No. The pyramids, Mona Lisa and almost any other great artefact has been the subject of more..... probably because they are not owned by the RCC.
1.2.3.Certainly the Pyramids and the Mona Lisa have been seriously studied by scientists, but the Pyramids are not one artifact, and I would doubt that the Mona Lisa has received nearly as much scientific study as has the Shroud. But then, I could be wrong... Do you have any references as to the extent of scientific study of the Mona Lisa?
1.2.3.1. Mona: - She has been on popular display for years. Anybody can go to the Louvre and take a look.
- She has been restore several times, and this has been well documented
- she has been x-rayed and subjected to x-ray fluorescence to a degree that it has been possible to determine the technique used in the painting process.
- The owner has not obstructed, but rather encouraged the investigations.
- And if you think popularity and google hits is an argument:
--- "Mona Lisa": 4.690.000
--- "Shroud of Turin": 260.000
1.2.3.1.1. But, you didn't answer my question regarding notable experts. [+.25]

1. The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
1.1. Sources please?
1.1.1. [above...]
1.1.2. I could be overstating the case, but I have read that claim, or something very similar, several times. For instance, from Wikipedia:
- The shroud remains one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.[17][18][19]
--- 17. "The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history" statement considered as "widely accepted" in Lloyd A Currie, « The Remarkable Metrological History of Radiocarbon Dating [II] », J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 109, 2004, p. 200 Article.
--- 18. William Meacham, The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology, Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983. [1]
--- 19. Hidden History by Brian Haughton 2007 ISBN 1564148971 page 117
1.1.2.1. Yes, the shroud has been the target of speculations galore, but to quote from the very same wikipedia article: Very few scientists (e.g. STURP and the Radiocarbon dating teams) have had direct access to the shroud or very small samples from it, and most theories have been proposed "long distance" by the analysis of images, or via secondary sources. The scientific approaches to the study of the Shroud fall into three groups: material analysis (both chemical and historical), biology and medical forensics and image analysis.
- And a recurring theme in sindology:Quote: However, these were all indirect studies without access to the shroud itself. (IE unverified speculations or experiments based on assumptions, AKA: BS)
- We are down to: Photos in 1898, Direct examination in 1969-1973 (for preservation), 1978: STURP (Direct examination again), 1988: Radiocarbon dating (on a fragment.... but you have ruled that one out) ..... and a little fiddling with fibers stuck to tape, graciously handed over by STURP. That is something like three times in a hundred years!
1.1.2.1.1. In that sense, yes -- but still, no noted expert is saying that the Shroud is not at least one of the most studied ancient artefacts, there have in fact been multitudinous rigorous scientific studies done on the Shroud and sticky tapes by numerous experts -- and even so, no modern day scientist has been able to fully explain the Shroud.
1.1.2.1.1.1. But, that they cannot "fully" explain the Shroud, doesn't mean very much. What they can't explain could be insignificant.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1. But, that is not the case. The quality of the 3D and holographic encoding (for instance) has gone unexplained, and that's extremely significant. [+1.25.]

Uncluttered Versions

1. The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
2. Sources please?
3. There are a lot of seemingly credible (to me) scholars making that and similar claims. Google shroud+"most studied". [+.25]

1. The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
2. No. The pyramids, Mona Lisa and almost any other great artefact has been the subject of more..... probably because they are not owned by the RCC.
3.Certainly the Pyramids and the Mona Lisa have been seriously studied by scientists, but the Pyramids are not one artifact, and I would doubt that the Mona Lisa has received nearly as much scientific study as has the Shroud. But then, I could be wrong... Do you have any references as to the extent of scientific study of the Mona Lisa?
4. Mona: - She has been on popular display for years. Anybody can go to the Louvre and take a look.
- She has been restore several times, and this has been well documented
- she has been x-rayed and subjected to x-ray fluorescence to a degree that it has been possible to determine the technique used in the painting process.
- The owner has not obstructed, but rather encouraged the investigations.
- And if you think popularity and google hits is an argument:
--- "Mona Lisa": 4.690.000
--- "Shroud of Turin": 260.000
5. But, you didn't answer my question regarding notable experts. [+.25]

1. The shroud has been subject to more scientific studies than has been any other historical artifact.
2. Sources please?
3. I could be overstating the case, but I have read that claim, or something very similar, several times. For instance, from Wikipedia:
- The shroud remains one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.[17][18][19]
--- 17. "The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history" statement considered as "widely accepted" in Lloyd A Currie, « The Remarkable Metrological History of Radiocarbon Dating [II] », J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 109, 2004, p. 200 Article.
--- 18. William Meacham, The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology, Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983. [1]
--- 19. Hidden History by Brian Haughton 2007 ISBN 1564148971 page 117
4. Yes, the shroud has been the target of speculations galore, but to quote from the very same wikipedia article: Very few scientists (e.g. STURP and the Radiocarbon dating teams) have had direct access to the shroud or very small samples from it, and most theories have been proposed "long distance" by the analysis of images, or via secondary sources. The scientific approaches to the study of the Shroud fall into three groups: material analysis (both chemical and historical), biology and medical forensics and image analysis.
- And a recurring theme in sindology:Quote: However, these were all indirect studies without access to the shroud itself. (IE unverified speculations or experiments based on assumptions, AKA: BS)
- We are down to: Photos in 1898, Direct examination in 1969-1973 (for preservation), 1978: STURP (Direct examination again), 1988: Radiocarbon dating (on a fragment.... but you have ruled that one out) ..... and a little fiddling with fibers stuck to tape, graciously handed over by STURP. That is something like three times in a hundred years!
5. In that sense, yes -- but still, no noted expert is saying that the Shroud is not at least one of the most studied ancient artefacts, there have in fact been multitudinous rigorous scientific studies done on the Shroud and sticky tapes by numerous experts -- and even so, no modern day scientist has been able to fully explain the Shroud.
6. But, that they cannot "fully" explain the Shroud, doesn't mean very much. What they can't explain could be insignificant.
7. But, that is not the case. The quality of the 3D and holographic encoding (for instance) has gone unexplained, and that's extremely significant. [+1.25.]