https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e22sNgSw904

The main speaker is about 8 minutes in.

"he [Peter] went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there, and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place." (John 20:6-7)

This article does not explain how the image was created. It claims it was a painting that has degenerated, but does not explain how an artist created a photographic negative centuries before photography was invented. How is that possible? And WHY would an artist do this? What possible reason could he have??

That's why it's a parsimonious explanation for a naturalist.

That depends on what it's supposed to be an explanation for.

"There is nothing prima facie supernatural about a multiverse"

That's why it's a parsimonious explanation for a naturalist.

There is nothing prima facie supernatural about a multiverse. The multiverse hypothesis was formulated as a possible naturalistic explanation for certain facts discovered by conventional naturalistic science. When other explanations for those facts are offered for consideration, then we can compare them for their parsimony. But unless one of those explanations presupposes some supernatural force at work, they will all be naturalistic explanations.

I would have thought that a more parsimonious explanation of reality for a naturalist would be to simply posit a multiverse.

easy tiger i am catholic

I do not speculate out denial, but am persuaded that this is a reasonable conclusion based on an article by Charles Freeman in history today.

Look, the shroud is real it can be properly carbon dated, if its supporters want to reject the carbon 14 dating, provide another sample that they agree is from the original shroud.

Donate it to a real museum or have an independent university history department provide an independent analysis. It could very well be 2000 years old, though there is little reason to believe this. Even if it was it would not be consistent with a burial wrapping. The body is in the wrong position, an impossible position. There image doesn't make sense with respect to the head as well.

Of course these could all be part of the miracle, but recourse to this kind of thing is like saying "a boy without a winkle, what a miracle!" and ignoring the more reasonable explanation that a boy without a winkle, is a girl. (Props to John Lloyd).

Charles Freeman

Yes, of course, because you are unsatisfied with the results of 500,000 man-hours of testing so far!

Are you that dependent on your unbelief that you smugly insist on more testing when YOU have failed to examine in depth the results they have documented?

Is yours an example of how authentic science works, or are you all just to scared to immerse yourselves in what is available before you pontificate on what you clearly do not
know?

http://www.shroud.com

Thanks for the additional information!