The conversion (or more correctly, reversion) of former agnostic Joe Schmid to Catholicism last month was motivated principally by what Schmid views as overwhelming evidence for the occurrence of miracles which, he argues, vindicate Catholic doctrinal claims. Now, Schmid readily acknowledges that miracle claims won’t impress an avowed naturalist – which is why he created a seven-hour video presenting a cumulative case for theism, thereby establishing at least the possibility of miraculous events occurring. In this post, I won’t be discussing Schmid’s case for theism, which I view as a theological curate’s egg: good in parts (and bad in others). Instead, I’ll be focusing on the miracles Schmid cites to bolster his case for Catholicism. Can they prove his case, and how well do they stack up? Because I was raised in the faith Schmid has returned to, I’ve done a lot of research on the miracles he discusses, and I’ve put together some good links which readers may find helpful.
Joe Schmid makes his case for God’s existence in a 7-hour video, titled, The BEST EVER Cumulative Case for God. See here for a 12-hour critical review of Schmid’s arguments for theism by Nathan Ormond (Digital Gnosis) and James Fodor. My own view is that Ormond and Fodor effectively refute the argument from psycho-physical harmony and the fine-tuning argument, but fail to adequately address the argument from beauty. There are, of course, many other powerful arguments for God’s existence. Schmid, for his part, makes a rather weak response to the atheistic argument from evil, in my opinion: he needs to give a better account of why God allows horrendous evils. That’s all I wish to say on Schmid’s case for theism.
Can miracles be used to argue for the truth of a particular religion, such as Catholicism?
Christian author Glen Scrivener has posted an excellent two-hour Youtube video in response to Joe Schmid, from a Protestant perspective: I Watched 25+ Hours of Joe Schmid—I Have Thoughts.
Derek Lambert of Mythvision has also put up a one-hour video, titled, Joe Schmid’s 20-hour Miracle Case Dies in One Verse, pointing out that the Hebrew Bible itself repeatedly declares that God sometimes sends fake miracles and lying spirits to test the loyalty of his followers. Also, the New Testament declares that there will be false miracles (signs and wonders) that will deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mt 24:24), and that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 13:14). Hence no miracle can be treated as vindicating a religious doctrine.
How well do Catholic miracle claims stack up?
For the benefit of readers, I’ll mention that an ex-Catholic YouTuber who calls himself Kevin NonTradiCath has created a website debunking many popular Catholic miracles. I should also note that Catholics are not required to believe in any of these miracles, as they relate to private revelations; in approving them, the Church merely declares them worthy of belief. In this post, I’ll examine the following alleged Catholic miracles:
1. Padre Pio
2. The Lourdes miracles and the visions of St. Bernadette
3. Our Lady of Fatima
4. Our Lady of Guadeloupe
5. St. Catherine Laboure and the Miraculous Medal
6. The levitating saint: St. Joseph of Cupertino/Copertino
7. The Miracle of Calanda (in which God grew back an amputee’s leg)
8. Eucharistic miracles: Lanciano, Buenos Aires and Tixtla
9. Incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints
10. The Shroud of Turin
11. Exorcisms: Are demons real?
I haven’t included Our Lady of Zeitoun (Egypt) on this list because it is not a Catholic miracle (the apparitions took place on top of a Coptic church), not everyone saw a lady on top of the church (some simply saw a light), and the apparition did not speak, let alone confirm the truth of any religious claim.
1. Padre Pio
Kevin NonTradiCath has put up a Youtube video titled, St Padre Pio, or, a Case Study in Catholic Cults of Personality, debunking Padre Pio’s alleged miracles (stigmata, healings and bilocation), but clearing him of allegations of impropriety.
2. The Lourdes miracles and the visions of St. Bernadette
Kevin NonTradiCath has created an informative video titled, Our Lady of Lourdes, St. Bernadette Soubirous, Forest Fairies, Medical Malpractice & Pseudoscience, debunking the visions of St. Bernadette and the cures at Lourdes.
3. Our Lady of Fatima
By far the best critical article I have seen on the miracle of Fatima is one by the B.A. psychology graduate Evan Harkness-Murphy, over at her blog The Magpie: “Your Lady of Fatima – A Response to Ethan Muse” (September 13, 2025).
See also James Fodor’s in-depth discussion of the Fatima apparitions, titled, A Skeptical Analysis of the 1917 Marian Apparitions and Miracle of the Sun (very detailed: two hours long).
See also the article, “Fatima Miracle Claims All Wet” by Benjamin Radford in The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 43 no. 3 (May/June 2019), questioning whether the witnesses to the solar miracle at Fatima were really soaking wet and whether their clothes miraculously dried in the space of a few minutes, as popularly claimed by Fatima devotees.
See, in addition, the article, “Did photos of the 1917 Miracle of the Sun at Fatima prove the sun was at an impossible place in the sky?” at the EukaryoteWrites blog, critiquing recent claims made by the priest Dr. Phillipe Dalleur (who’s cited on Joe Schmid’s video), on the basis of his interpretation of photos of the crowd at Fatima, that the solar miracle was actually caused by a second body in the sky, not the Sun. See here for Dalleur’s original article making the claims.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made a highly informative video titled, The miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917 was a natural event, not a miracle. Here is why, reviewing Fr. Stanley Jaki’s book, “God and the Sun at Fatima”, which invokes providentially-timed atmospheric ice crystals to explain the solar phenomena observed at Fatima. Kevin writes: “If you want to skip to to my favorite part, jump to the last chapter of the video, starting at 48:22. That is where I compare all the eyewitness testimony from Fatima to the sun miracle at Medjugorje caught on camera. I think that we can use that footage from Medjugorje in 2023 to try to make sense of the eyewitness testimony from Fatima, over 100 years earlier, in 1917.”
See also the following scientific article from 2003: “Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun” by Dr. Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Louvain, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. “Abstract: Apparitions are subjective experiences, but can be accompanied by “miracles of the sun”, observed and described by numerous witnesses. An extensive study of these phenomena reveals a set of characteristic features, suggesting the existence of an underlying mechanism. It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature. Apparitions are more complex experiences, but the content of the “messages” raises theological problems. Moreover, it is necessary to relate these “mystical experiences” to new insights in psychological processes that involve altered states of consciousness. This subject calls urgently for continued, rigorous and responsible research.”
Please note also that the children’s descriptions of the apparition shifted over time. In the earliest 1917 interviews, the entity was described as a tiny, one-meter-tall girl wearing a short skirt, which heavily conflicted with the traditional, majestic Catholic depictions of the Virgin Mary popularized later.
Regarding the alleged prophecies made by the seers at Fatima, Kevin NonTradiCath has made a video titled, “The more you learn about the Miracle of Fatima, the less impressive it seems”. The video debunks three popular Catholic claims about Our Lady of Fatima: that she predicted the deaths of the visionaries Francisco and Jacinta (false: the earliest record of this alleged prediction is from 1927, more than seven years after their deaths); that she predicted the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II (also false: the earliest record of the prediction about WWII comes from a memoir Lucia wrote in 1941, two years after the outbreak of WWII); and that everybody at Fatima saw the Miracle of the Sun (false: we have records of people who were there and who saw nothing, and the number of recorded testimonies of people who saw the miracle comes to no more than a few dozen, despite the fact that at least 30,000 people are supposed to have been present, and we also have records of educated people who not only saw nothing but who were present at Fatima with several other friends or acquaintances who saw nothing, but who noted that less educated people witnessed the phenomenon).
Kevin Nontradicath has also created a video titled, Retconning Fatima: How Lucia Updated a Prophecy of Fatima about the End of World War I. Kevin NonTradiCath argues that Lucia herself was a fraud because of a failed prophecy she made and later retconned. Lucia said Our Lady told her to wait at the Cova da Iria (the site of the apparitions) because the Portuguese soldiers fighting in World War I would be returning soon, but actually the war didn’t end for another year. Lucia changed the prophecy in her 1941 memoir. Also, Lucia herself never saw the miracle of the sun on October 13th, 1917. Finally, the sign from God that she was referring to seems to have been the end of the war, rather than the solar miracle.
Kevin NonTradiCath has created another video, titled, Jacinta can’t save Lucia’s failed prophecy: A case against the Conditional Prophecy Defense. Note: this “conditional interpretation” is the defense that Joe Schmid leans on, in his online apologia, where he argues that what Our Lady really meant was that that IF people repented, the war would end today.
4. Our Lady of Guadeloupe
Kevin NonTradiCath has made a highly informative video titled, Juan Diego’s Tilma – An Examination of Six Common Claims about the legend of Our Lady of Guadeloupe.
5. The Miraculous Medal of St. Catherine Laboure
Kevin NonTradiCath, in his video, The Miraculous Medal, or, How to Eat Relics to Induce Marian Apparitions, argues that the Miraculous Medal is a pious fraud; curiously, Sister Catherine Laboure completely forgot about her visions of Our Lady for several years. Even more strangely, she declares that it was eating some clothes which had belonged to a Catholic saint that caused her to have visions of Our Lady!
6. The levitating saint: St. Joseph of Cupertino/Copertino
The well-attested miracle of the seventeenth-century flying friar, St. Joseph of Cupertino, is debunked by skeptic Joe Nickell in his article, “Secrets of ‘The Flying Friar’: Did St. Joseph of Copertino Really Levitate?” in The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 42, No. 4 (July / August 2018). Here’s an AI overview of the article: Joe Nickell’s connection to Cupertino refers to his skeptical investigation of Saint Joseph of Cupertino (1603–1663), the 17th-century Italian Franciscan friar widely known in Catholic tradition as “The Flying Friar” due to numerous accounts of his ecstatic levitations. As a world-renowned professional paranormal investigator and skeptic, Nickell analyzed the historical claims of the friar’s flights — such as soaring to the high altar or carrying a heavy cross through the air — and published his findings in a detailed critique for the Skeptical Inquirer. Nickell’s Core Findings on the “Flying Friar”:
Rather than accepting the levitations as genuine miracles, Nickell attributed the accounts to a mix of natural human abilities, stagecraft, and severe historical distortion:
“Gross Exaggeration” in Biographies: Nickell pointed out that the primary biographical sources documenting these feats were published more than half a century after Joseph’s death. Over decades, oral traditions and legends heavily distorted the original events.
The Nature of the “Flights”: Historical records indicate that Joseph’s “levitations” often began with a loud shriek followed by a leap. Nickell noted that these incidents were better explained as energetic jumps or bounds rather than true floating. Observers, swept up in religious ecstasy and viewing him from below in dimly lit churches, easily misperceived these leaps as supernatural levitation.
Lack of Primary Evidence: The original sworn records used during the early stages of his canonization process are no longer available for independent scientific study, leaving investigators to rely on heavily biased second-hand accounts. Another, fairly balanced article on St. Joseph of Cupertino can be found here, on the Historical Blindness blog.
7. The Miracle of Calanda (in which God is said to have miraculously grown back the leg of an amputee named Miguel Pellicer, from Calanda, Spain, whose leg was surgically amputated in 1637, but allegedly grew back instantly in 1640)
The best take-down of this alleged miracle is Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid podcast, Miracle of Calanda. There’s also an excellent update on the original article, responding to Catholic critics and demonstrating that no doctor at the 1640 miracle trial ever testified that he’d personally amputated Miguel’s leg, casting doubt on claims that it had ever been amputated in the first place.
Here’s an excerpt from an AI-generated summary of the skeptical case against the miracle of Calanda:
Background and Claims The Event: In 1640, a Spanish peasant named Miguel Pellicer claimed his right leg—amputated two and a half years prior after a cart accident—miraculously regrew.
The Investigation: Local church and secular authorities, including a legal tribunal and the Inquisition, investigated the case and declared it a genuine miracle in 1641. Unlike many religious legends that develop centuries later, the documentation for Calanda began within days.
The Notarial Act (April 1, 1640): Just three days after the event, a local royal notary named Miguel Andreu and the parish priest travelled to Calanda. They recorded sworn statements from 10 eyewitnesses (including local officials and family members) who testified they saw Miguel with only one leg right before the event, and two legs right after.
The Canonical Process (June 1640 – April 1641): The Archbishop of Zaragoza, Pedro Apaolaza Ramírez, initiated a formal court to rigorously cross-examine the claims. Over nearly a year, 24 official witnesses gave testimony under oath.
The Hospital Staff Testimony: Crucially, the court called forward the professional secular staff from the General Hospital of Zaragoza where Miguel’s leg was treated. This included Juan de Estanga (the surgeon who ordered the amputation), Diego Millaruelo (the assistant surgeon who cut it off), and the hospital priest who buried the severed leg in the cemetery. The original manuscript — Copia literal y auténtica del proceso — remains preserved in the Zaragoza cathedral archives. It concludes with the Archbishop’s official ruling on April 27, 1641, declaring the limb restoration explicitly “wonderful and miraculous.”
Skeptical View: Critics argue that 17th-century investigations lacked modern scientific rigor, and extraordinary claims from the past rely entirely on anecdotal and biased testimony. While the 1640–1641 legal investigation by the Archbishop of Zaragoza looks incredibly thorough on paper, modern historians and critical researchers have identified several significant cracks, omissions, and systemic biases in the process. When evaluated by modern judicial or investigative standards, the “ironclad” legal record begins to show major vulnerabilities.
(i) The Complete Lack of Cross-Examination In a modern court, a witness’s claims are tested by a skeptical defense attorney who looks for contradictions.
The Crack: The Canonical Process was entirely one-sided. The tribunal was not trying to find a fraud; they were trying to validate a miracle to boost Catholic morale during the Counter-Reformation.
The Reality: Every single one of the 24 witnesses was a devout Catholic, and many stood to gain status, fame, or religious validation from the event. None of the witnesses were cross-examined aggressively, nor were they asked questions that might expose a hoax, such as whether they had ever closely examined Miguel’s “stump” without its bandages.
(ii) The Timeline Discrepancy (The Missing Two Years) The legal documents heavily rely on the testimony of the hospital staff in Zaragoza to prove the leg was actually amputated. However, a major chronological gap exists between the hospital and the miracle.
The Crack: The amputation took place in late 1637. The “miracle” occurred in March 1640.
The Reality: For over two full years between these events, Miguel was not living in the hospital. He was traveling the country as a wandering beggar. The Zaragoza hospital staff had not seen Miguel for years before he suddenly showed up in Calanda claiming his leg grew back. They could only testify to what they did in 1637, not to what Miguel’s leg looked like in the days or weeks leading up to the night of March 29, 1640.
(iii) The Power of “Social and Religious Pressure” Calanda was a small, deeply religious village. Once the rumor of a miracle exploded, it became socially dangerous to deny it.
The Crack: Local officials—including the notary Miguel Andreu, who arrived just three days later—were under immense pressure to confirm the event.
The Reality: If a local villager had suspected Miguel was a fraud who had simply unbound a hidden leg, speaking out would mean accusing their neighbors, the local priests, and eventually the Archbishop of lying. In 17th-century Spain, challenging a declared miracle could easily result in being investigated by the Inquisition for heresy or witchcraft. This created a powerful incentive for total conformity among the witnesses.
(iv) No Physical or Forensics Inspection of the “Regrown” Leg For an event centered entirely on a physical body part, the tribunal’s examination of the leg itself was remarkably superficial.
The Crack: The court relied almost purely on visual testimony (“we saw two legs where there used to be one”) rather than an objective physical or medical evaluation.
The Reality: No independent, outside physicians were brought in to physically manipulate the leg, test its bone structure, or verify if the “amputation scars” were genuine or merely skin blemishes. The court notes that the leg was pale, small, and weak at first — which perfectly matches what a leg looks like after being tightly bound and immobilized against a thigh for two years to fake an injury.
(v) The Disappearance of Key Records While the final summary document (the Proceso) survives, the actual raw investigative notes, daily logs, and initial interviews are missing.
The Crack: Historians pointing out cracks in the case note that we only have the “polished,” final version of the events compiled by the Church authorities.
The Reality: Any early contradictions, hesitant witnesses, or dissenting opinions that occurred during the year-long trial were completely scrubbed from the final official narrative to present a flawless, unanimous front to the public.
8. Eucharistic miracles: Lanciano, Buenos Aires, Tixtla and Sokolka
Cinematographer Cade Bradley interviews Kevin NonTradiCath on the shoddy science behind Eucharistic miracles, in his video, Eucharistic Miracles Are FAKE – The ‘Science’ Is Way Worse Than You’ve Been Told.
Surprisingly, the best critiques of Eucharistic miracles have come from Christians: from Dr. Maxime Georgel (a Protestant who acknowledges the reality of miracles) and from Catholic scientists Stacy Trasancos and Kelly Kearse.
(a) The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy
First, here’s Catholic apologist Ethan Muse’s video arguing for the reality of the Miracle of Lanciano: If You’re Skeptical of Eucharistic Miracles, You Need to See This. (At 22:00, interviewer Matt Fradd puts forward a conspiracy theory suggesting that the actual piece of flesh that’s currently preserved in the Host at Lanciano may not be centuries old, but may date back to only 1970. Muse responds to this conspiracy theory.) There are several high-quality videos and online essays critiquing the miracle of Lanciano. The most in-depth response is the Response to Ethan Muse On the Alleged Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano by Dr. Maxime Georgel (July 28, 2026), which has been translated to English and reproduced over at Javier Perdomo’s substack. Dr. Georgel makes a point-by-point reply to Muse, arguing that in order to prove a miracle, it has to be shown that the flesh and blood on display at Lanciano is human flesh and blood, that it was once a consecrated host, that its preservation across the centuries is miraculous, and that we can rule out fraud. Dr. Georgel regards each of these claims as questionable.
“The fake Lanciano WHO report” by Catholic chemist Dr. Stacy Trasancos, is a pretty devastating expose of the oft-repeated apologetic assertion that a WHO report backed the claims made in 1971 by a Catholic doctor regarding the alleged presence of flesh in the Host at Lanciano. (Incidentally, you can also read my article, “Catholic Eucharistic miracles debunked by Catholic chemist Dr. Stacy Trasancos” at The Skeptical Zone.)
See also the article, “Exaggerations and Eucharistic Miracles” by Stacy Trasancos, in Crisis magazine. This article discusses the work of Catholic science teacher Kelly Kearse, exposing Eucharistic miracles and showing that bacteria can duplicate many of the results.
Kelly Kearse has recently written a PubMed paper titled, “Scientific analysis of shared AB blood type among relics and eucharistic miracles: A reply to Franco Serafini’s commentary” (Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2026). See also his Youtube video, “Scientific Analysis of Eucharistic Miracles” (11 July 2025), a 33-minute talk given to the Society of Catholic Scientists at the Catholic University of America, in which Dr. Kearse shows that non-consecrated wafers placed in water for 7 to 10 days display reddish stains, suggests that fungal DNA may account for the reddish stains commonly found on hosts in Eucharistic miracles, and recommends publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals as the best way to rule out alternative, naturalistic explanations of Eucharistic miracles.
Over at his Youtube channel Capturing Catholicism, Cameron Bertuzzi has recently hit back at the skeptics, with a lengthy one-hour Youtube video presented by the French Catholic apologist Matthieu Lavagna, titled, “Demolishing EVERY Objection to Eucharistic Miracles” (July 5, 2026). Please note that Lavagna is not a scientist; he has a degree in philosophy and theology and he’s pursuing studies in mathematics. As Lavagna himself acknowledges, the main oddity in the Catholic evidence for Eucharistic miracles is that there is no DNA of Jesus’ Eucharistic flesh. Lavagna’s lame reply is that maybe God doesn’t want to reveal the details of Christ’s body. Nor does he want people to clone Jesus. Overall, the shrill, defensive tone of Lavagna’s presentation is very off-putting.
(b) Recent Eucharistic Miracles
Kevin NonTradiCath has created a video debunking the Eucharistic miracle at Buenos Aires, Argentina, dating from 1992 to 1996, titled, Eucharistic Miracles at Buenos Aires – An Ex-Catholic Perspective.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made a video debunking the Eucharistic miracle at Tixtla, Mexico, titled, Eucharistic Miracle Tier List: Tixtla, Mexico – An ex-Catholic’s Opinion.
More recently, Kevin NonTradiCath has put up a video titled, The Eucharistic Miracle at Sokolka Poland, 2008 – An ex-Catholic Perspective.
Kevin NonTradiCath has also made another video titled, Meet the Quack | Snake Oil Salesman who leads Eucharistic Miracle Investigations for the Church, which calls into severe question the judgement of one of the scientists investigating the miracles, Dr. Ricardo Gomez.
9. Incorrupt bodies of Catholic saints
Kevin NonTradiCath has made a video titled, Incorrupt Bodies of Saints – An Ex-Catholic Perspective, showing that many saints’ bodies were artificially preserved, while others were stored in cool environments that would have been conducive to mummification. In a few cases, flooding actually helped prevent decay!
10. The Shroud of Turin
Digital Gnosis (Nathan Ormond) and Luciferian Engineer (James Fodor) have put up a lengthy video titled, Unravelling the Shroud of Turin – Bad Apologetics 30, debunking the Shroud.
11. Exorcism: Are Demons Real? Here’s a CNN article on Yale-trained psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gallagher, who earnestly believes that demons are real: “When exorcists need help, they call him” (August 4, 2017).
A year before the CNN article was published, New England skeptic Dr. Steve Novella had already debunked the claims of psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gallagher, that demons are real, in his article, “A Psychiatrist falls for exorcism” on his Neurologica blog, “The Ness” (July 5, 2016).
Here is Dr. Novella’s response to the above-cited CNN article: “Token Skepticism about Exorcism” (August 7, 2017).
See also this article by skeptic Brian Dunning on one celebrated exorcism: “Exorcism: The case of Annaliese”. Here’s an excerpt from Dunning’s article: “Today doctors can look at cases like Anneliese, and though we cannot make a reliable diagnosis without an examination, it seems clear that she suffered from a variety of conditions including dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder). It’s usually comorbid with other psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, from which Anneliese probably suffered as well; and chronic stress is indeed one potential cause of her epileptic seizures.”
On the psychological harm done by exorcism, and why it constitutes psychological abuse, see this article at the WhatsTheHarm website. Here’s a quote from Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid article, “Exorcism: The case of Annaliese”, which references this website: “Of course, Anneliese was not the only victim of exorcism. The excellent website WhatsTheHarm.net lists over a thousand such cases, most from the recent decade, and most from Western countries. It is not ancient history and it is not limited to developing countries. Hundreds of professional exorcists walk among us, today, seeking critically ill psychiatric patients upon whom they can shout charms and sprinkle water. Many of these cases recount shocking tortures. Drownings, crucifixions, burnings, stabbings, all in the name of exorcism, and most to innocent children or the mentally ill.”
General Criticism
See Kevin NonTradiCath’s video, Miracle or Marketing? Exposing the Lack of Science in Catholic Miracles (Featuring Skeptasmic).
colewd:
If you truly believed that, you’d be eager to explain why the analogies fail and would have done so already. Instead, you’re trying to wave the issue away, just as you’re trying to wave away the overwhelming evidence against the Shroud’s authenticity.
They’re excellent analogies because they’re all examples of the same mistake you’re making: “If I don’t understand how X happened, it must have been a miracle.”
Miracle of the gaps.
keiths,
Hi Keiths
It’s important that we avoid talking over each other. Let’s slow down.
I have read your analogies they are not close enough to.be effective because they do not contain the organisation of microscopic features. Features that need strong magnification to even see.
Whet do you understand about how microscopic features create greyscale? This is critical as there is no way the image could be created by someone that did not understand the placement of these microscopic image units. The imaging strategy of the micro image units is what makes the macro image look real under photograph.
colewd:
Sailed right over your head. The microscopic features of my recliner were not relevant, because they didn’t need to be manipulated so that it ended up on the patio. We just picked it up and moved it. The microscopic features of the metal pieces were not manipulated in order to create the weld. The aliens just welded them together. The microscopic features of the stone blocks were not manipulated in order to construct Stonehenge, the Pyramids and the Easter Island moai. People just moved the blocks as needed. The microscopic features of the rocks and desert floor were not manipulated in order to move the rocks around. The movement just happened because of the weather. The analogies have nothing to do with microscopic features and everything to do with the mistake you’re making: “If I don’t understand how X happened, it must have been a miracle.”
Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the latest questions I’ve raised, just as you’ve ignored pretty much everything else I’ve said in this discussion that shows why the Shroud isn’t authentic. It can’t be satisfying to run away all the time. If you’re going to believe something, wouldn’t it feel better if you could actually defend it?
Besides ignoring all of the counterevidence and counterarguments, your entire argument rests on the premise that the microscopic features were intentional. Yet you haven’t addressed the fact that the forger wouldn’t have cared about those features at all. He just wanted a convincing image.
And even if we make the wild assumption that the image is miraculous, you haven’t explained why God would care whether an image was produced at all, much less an image with certain microscopic specifications. He was just trying to resurrect Jesus, wasn’t he?
keiths,
If the alleged forger generated the image only caring about the macro image we would not expect to see the organised micro structures as they are mission critical to the image we are seeing. Without the micro structures there is no image,
The image is the aggregate of the organised micro. structures which contain around 30 to 60 million individual units.
colewd:
What, you think the forger had some sort of microstructure fetish?
François:
Gilles:
François:
Gilles:
François:
Gilles:
François:
Gilles:
François:
Gilles:
Also, you didn’t respond to this:
Bill,
My impression is that the aspect of the Shroud image that you find inexplicable under natural explanations is that the image consists of microscopic elements (30 – 60 million of them) that are arranged in a way that creates a smooth grey-scale shading, which requires technically challenging positioning of the ‘pixel’ elements.
Is this correct?
I agree that “unknown” can be used to dismiss any miracle claim. However, if you want to put your money on “not a miracle” you would never once have lost that bet. I think thousands of things have been labeled miracles when not understood, and all have turned out not to be miracles except a few that are still not fully understood (though rejecting every rational explanation for the shroud in favor of a miracle is pretty stupid. You don’t seem to realize what everyone else does – that you decided on miracle first, and are now a prisoner of the facts, and grasping at idiotic “explanations” to defend a silly position. The question is no longer anything about the shroud, and everything about the persistence of wrong beliefs.)
Flint, to colewd:
Bill is so acclimated to his religious beliefs that he no longer recognizes how wild it is to assert that a miracle has occurred. Instead, he acts as if miracle claims are on a more or less equal footing with naturalistic claims, at least where the Shroud is concerned. I kept that in mind when selecting my examples. Even Bill must find it absurd for someone to claim that my recliner’s appearance on the patio was a miracle or that welding is a miraculous process.
DNA_Jock,
Yes this is right.
Pixel here is short for image units
The grey scale shading is based on variation of the density of the pixels for example the top of the nose has a maximum density of pixels. This is where I see evidence of intent as the grey scale strategy that we see is not possible without prior knowledge of what image unit size is required to generate the grey scale over the contrast band that generates an image that is vague when observed by the naked eye but comes to life when photographed.
keiths,
This image has been revealed over time through technology. This is consistent with the basic theology of the bible. For example in Daniel 9 God reveals his ultimate timeline to put an end to animal sacrifice and sin through the Messiah, This timeline was not revealed prior to the last days of the Jews exile in Babylon.
If the Shroud turns out to be authentic it has been revealed over time through scientific discovery. Some of the discovery generated controversy such as the carbon dating data and a Bishop claiming a forger confessed. Controversy draws people’s attention to the relic.
Flint,
If you followed the whole discussion you would know that I initially discounted the Shroud due to the carbon dating until I understood more about the actual data the carbon method produced and the existence of other methods.
I agree with you a miracle claim needs extraordinary evidence and may be falsified in time. I think extraordinary evidence is rare but I currently see the evidence of the make up of the Shrouds image being extraordinary evidence.
The skeptics view as revealed by comments here seems to be miracles or acts of God do not exist. Do you agree?
colewd:
First, you haven’t answered the question, which was why God would have cared about the image at all given that his purpose was to resurrect Jesus. A bunch of questions follow from that:
Your reply…
…doesn’t answer any of those questions.
Far less attention than if it were shown to be authentic. Can you imagine? The Catholic Church would be crowing about it from the rooftops and using it to attract new converts. They would proudly put it on display. There would be massive coverage of it from the media. The Pope would make a huge deal out of it. Thousands of pilgrims would come from around the world to see it.
God doesn’t want any of that, for some reason. How do you explain it?
colewd, to Flint:
I’ve already explained why the other methods are bogus:
You ignored all of that and are now back to pretending that the other methods actually cast doubt on the radiocarbon data. Further, I’ve already explained why the reweave hypothesis — the idea that there was an invisible repair to the Shroud and that what is being carbon-dated is actually the repair and not the Shroud itself — doesn’t hold up under scrutiny:
You ignored all of that, too, and most likely will continue to ignore it since you seem to have zero interest in the truth.
I don’t think that miracles are real, but that’s a conclusion, not a premise. Show me persuasive evidence and I’ll change my mind. What you’re offering — “I don’t know how a forger could have produced the image; therefore it was a miracle” is not persuasive.
Cool. So the forger could have used whey, rather than collagen, to achieve that result. Obviously he’d have used the whey to deliver an oxidizing agent, then washed it off. Red lead or iron oxides might do the trick, but there’s a lot of possibilities you’ll need to rule out. Good luck.
keiths,
Keiths
First you are asking me a question that I can only answer from a human perspective and not from the perspective of the creator of the universe.
God revealed himself to us over 6000 years through evidence much of which is documented in the bible. The Shroud is a unique form of physical evidence that is scientifically complex.
This set of question assumes we can understand the mind of God. I hope we can avoid this bunny trail and evaluate the physical evidence.
The other method cast substantial doubt on the carbon dating as the data was not homogenous on the sample but homogenous on the control. The WAXES test does not have this problem
There are a few hypothesis why the data was not homogenous. This needs an explanation on the skeptics side.
Can you explain your process of coming to this conclusion? How do you define a miracle?
colewd:
For the purposes of this discussion, the miracle being proposed is that the image was created by an intense burst of ultraviolet radiation as Jesus was being resurrected. I reject that because the evidence overwhelmingly points toward a far more mundane and realistic explanation: forgery.
You are afraid to tackle these questions because they show that your position makes no sense. You think you can avoid the questions by punting and saying “Who can understand the mind of God?” The problem is that you are the one claiming to know the mind of God. You’re telling us that God intended to create the image while he was resurrecting Jesus and that he specifically wanted those microscopic features. How do you know that, if the mind of God is so mysterious?
Homogeneity doesn’t help when your method is brand new, unvalidated, not used by anyone else, and not expected to work anyway. You need an established, reliable, accurate dating method if you want to cast doubt on the C14 results. Plus I’ve addressed the heterogeneity issue multiple times and you’ve simply ignored me, thus showing zero interest in the truth. You’re just trying to prop up your flimsy belief in the Shroud’s authenticity by whatever intellectually dishonest means you can find.
What needs an explanation is why you believe that the Shroud is a first-century relic when the C14 data doesn’t show this even when you take the slightly increased heterogeneity into account, and why you think the reweave theory holds water given all of the objections I raised above, which you have once again ignored.
What’s the point of this discussion if you’re just going to ignore what I say or come up with excuses not to address it?
What I said was, if you had bet against the god hypothesis, you would have won every determined case. My view is that a godless universe if more than just solidly evidenced, it is so well documented that it would be perverse not to consider it the default. NOT proved, but the default.
I put gods in the same category as flying pigs, unicorns, and a flat earth. Like any skeptic, I will change my mind when you produce any of these things. Gods and miracles shouldn’t be the presumed “explanation” for something you don’t understand, and conjuring up far-fetched “explanations” while rejecting all rationality is not honest. Sure, the shroud might be a miracle, but I’m not to twist myself into a pretzel trying to force it to be one. Especially when I’m willing to accept a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
I didn’t not ask how you were defining this specific miracle. How did you come to the conclusion based on facts that miracles do not exist?
It only makes no sense to you and possibly other skeptics.
Homogeneity is a critical statistical test to validate the data. The carbon test failed and a less mature test passed as it was not affected by the potential contamination that may have caused the carbon test to fail.
The .03% test strip of the shroud failed homogeneity. We need correlation with the control to have any confidence in the result. The amount of spread across the samples was significantly higher than a passing result.
BTW. I am out of town for the next few days.
colewd:
The discussion will be more productive if you don’t keep looking for ways to avoid the questions I’m posing and the points I’m making. We’re discussing the Shroud. You believe that the creation of the Shroud image was miraculous. That’s the miracle that is relevant to our conversation, so that’s the one I’m discussing.
keiths:
colewd:
If your position makes sense, you should be able to answer my questions in a way that also makes sense. Have at it.
As I keep pointing out, the “less mature test” you’re referring to is unvalidated, isn’t used by anyone else, is based on a faulty principle and therefore wouldn’t be expected to work, and was invented specifically for the purpose of defending the Shroud’s authenticity by people who invented no less than four such methods. There’s only one reason you’re citing such a crappy test while downplaying the results of the gold standard C14 test: you want the Shroud to be authentic. You have once again exhibited zero interest in the truth.
keiths:
colewd:
We’ve been over this already, but you ignored it like you ignore everything else. Here’s the data again:
And my commentary:
It’s absurd, but you claim it makes sense. Tell us why while not dodging the points I’m raising.