The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends • Hacker News Board

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#131

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 11:51 AM UTC

thordenmark wrote: post #112

codingdave wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic…

They did not know primary colors. They weren't discovered until the 19th century, even then it took another 100 years before they figured out that red blue and yellow are not the primaries.

[deleted]

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#132

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 12:23 PM UTC

appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

Is there much of a controversy about it being an imprint of a body ?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#133

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 12:35 PM UTC

encoderer wrote: post #69

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clergy back then basically was a hacker culture- as in you get the suckers to buy some relic or immortality paperwork and have a nice life extracting resources and giving nothing in return.

They sold NFTs and shitcoins basically.

Seems pretty accurate, with the exception that relics seem to have worked as a much more official currency, in a context where the whole continent was severely lacking in coinage.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#134

Post by User23 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 1:13 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #129

User23 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of cou…

"Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. " This sounds like the 'no you' response. You didn't make any point. Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Chr…

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism.

I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief.

> Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god.

> I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god

You are hallucinating an argument I never made. If you want to engage please address what I actually wrote. This has nothing to do with “god of the gaps” or any such thing. It’s simply highlighting the definitively held atheist belief that reason played no role in any of the given phenomena.

> All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens.

This doesn’t make any sense. But sure an atheist might believe that alien life also evolved, once again, for no reason at all.

Or are you trying to propose something more sophisticated like that our reality is a simulation created by advanced aliens? Positing that our reality was created by an in some sense superior alien intelligence or intelligences does mean things didn’t happen for no reason at all.

It’s moderately interesting to compare simulationism with other intelligent design theories. I’m not going to do that here, but I will note that “supernatural” literally just means above nature, so vis a vis our perceived reality the creator or creators of the simulation would be supernatural beings. Similarly any admin actions they might take would be miraculous.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#135

Post by svieira » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #120

svieira wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing on the fibers that is visible under a high powered microscope. Paint (even spray-paint) is quite visibly distinct from the fiber it covers.

When it is relatively fresh, or well protected. Who know what is left after 600 years of handling and sunlight exposure and being saved from a fire.

We have known paintings from the time period - the paint is still visible under a microscope.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#136

Post by wooque » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

injb wrote: post #114

The most amazing theory I ever read was from The Second Messiah, which is totally fanciful and speculative, but even as a work of the imagination its strikingly impressive. What they said was that it's not fake, but its not exactly real either, in the sense that its not Jesus. What we're seeing is the image of a man who was tortured the way Jesus was said to have been tortured, including the crucifixion. But the man…

That sounds like the most reasonable explanation.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#137

Post by warrenski » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 3:11 PM UTC

aestetix wrote: post #66

I would be curious what Michael Shermer and others think of some of the more recent scientific investigations, as detailled by Fr. Andrew Dalton on Pints with Aquinas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAbuG-oVq1Q

Thanks for sharing this!

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#138

Post by tsimionescu » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 3:13 PM UTC

svieira wrote: post #135

tsimionescu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it is relatively fresh, or well protected. Who know what is left after 600 years of handling and sunlight exposure and being saved from a fire.

We have known paintings from the time period - the paint is still visible under a microscope.

Yes, because those paintings were preserved as paintings. And they were not designed in the first place to look like something other than a painting.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#139

Post by recursive » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:17 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #125

recursive wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nature of faith rejects the validity of such burdens of proof.

In Catholic beliefs, understanding, intelligence, logic, and reason are significant virtues. The believer is not supposed to be unquestioning of the world and treat everything as a miracle, lest they lose their faith. Instead, they are expected exactly to seek to understand the world, and marvel at God's creation in all their understanding. Especially related to miracles, the Catholic Church has a dedicated office fo…

I had a Catholic upbringing. In my experience, such questions were said to be antithetical to faith. "No true Catholic", I guess.

I have not heard about this office in the church, but I'm sure they know who is paying their bills. When a petroleum company pays for a study about the sustainability of fossil fuels, one should probably consider who's paying the bill when evaluating the conclusion.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#140

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

Anyone who has made the mistake of storing expensive clothing in a closet with a window (/me raises hand) can explain how the Shroud could have been created. An object that blocks sunlight from reaching a dark cloth will leave an unmistakable image of itself.