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:
[An aside: “thrust worthy” sounds like something you might say about a sexually attractive woman, lol.]
Their textile dating methodology has never been used before, hasn’t been validated, and wouldn’t be expected to work for the Shroud even if it had been validated because of the environmental issue I mentioned above. Why on earth should it cast doubt on the radiocarbon results, which are based on a methodology that’s been used and tested over and over and is known to be accurate? Especially when independent historical data backs up the radiocarbon dates.
And yet you can’t point to anything irrational about my skeptical arguments. This is just one more instance of lazy labeling — you’re calling me irrational without being able to point to anything irrational I’ve said, just as you accuse us of spreading anti-Trump propaganda when you can’t cite anything we’ve said about him that’s inaccurate.
There are two links, and they’re working for me both on my computer and also on my phone.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me whether you answer my questions. They’re for your benefit, not mine. I’m just pointing out that it’s irrational to ignore the issues that those questions raise and that if you were truly interested in the truth, you’d consider them carefully. I don’t think you’re looking for the truth; I think you’re looking for reassurance that your religious beliefs are correct. The Shroud would serve that purpose if authentic, as would ID if it were true.
I’ve explained more than once why I think it would be a waste of time. If there is ever evidence that holds up under expert scrutiny and outweighs the very strong evidence that the Shroud is a fake, the word will get out, and at that point i will start paying attention. Otherwise I have no more reason to pay attention to the Shroud than I do to a zillion other supernatural claims.
This is clearly a matter of some urgency to you, which is why you’re trying so hard to defend the claims. As I’ve said, I think that’s because you’re seeking reassurance, not truth. Suit yourself. For me there’s no urgency and no motive to investigate because the evidence is already overwhelming that the Shroud is a forgery. If it turns out that for some wild reason the Shroud is actually genuine, I’ll hear about it and can revise my beliefs accordingly. Until then, there are far better uses of my time.
keiths,
There are several dating tests that contradicted the carbon test. As good as the carbon test is it is subject to error especially when repairs to the cloth and fires depositing carbon can skew the results. The actual data is not homogeneous and that alone shows a problem with the measurements.
The biggest strength of the authenticity argument is the void of a natural explanation of how the microscopic and precise features of the image was formed. Its interesting to me that you have made no attempt to research the details of image as it takes very little time given AI to understand the challenges given your background.
colewd:
You mean the other three methods invented by the guys who published the x-ray paper (both of whom really really really want the Shroud to be authentic), none of which have been validated and none of which would actually be expected to work? If I invent a new unvalidated dating method and announce that the Shroud was created in the 1960s, will you accept my conclusion?
If you had watched the 8-minute video I linked to, you would know that a) no repairs were found in the vicinity of the samples and b) they carefully cleaned the samples in a way that would have removed any contamination, including carbon deposited by fire.
If you had watched the 8-minute video I linked to, you would know that the inhomogeneity was only slightly more than expected and that any dating error would be at most a century or two. That doesn’t get you to the 1st century, which is what you need.
It’s “interesting” to you that I haven’t spent time on something I consider a waste of time, for reasons already given? What is interesting is that you, who unlike me actually do care deeply about the Shroud, can’t be bothered to answer my questions or watch an 8-minute video. You’re ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is a fake.
You aren’t looking for truth, you’re looking for reassurance.
That’s a screenshot from the video showing the radiocarbon results. The measurements circled in red are the Shroud results from the three independent labs, and the other clusters are control samples. The x-axis is time. Taking the error bars into account, the worst-case spread is something like 200 years. That doesn’t get you to the time of Jesus’s death, not by a long shot.
Note this part of the caption:
keiths,
Hi Keiths
I understand he made this claim. When was the examination of the sample made to determine no repaired material. What method did they use to examine the sample. Was it the same as Rogers method?
Understand the portion examined was about .03% of the whole shroud. He makes the claim that at most the date could be 200 years off given the lack of homogeneity of the data. .03% of the Shroud looks at the heterogeneous data and makes this call for the entire Shroud?
Agrees Rogers found cotton in his sample but no cotton elsewhere in the rest of this 7 cm long sample?
I agree the carbon test is more mature than the other techniques but all other techniques not agreeing with the carbon test given all other factors should not be dismissed out of hand.
Again, the tie breaker for me is the evidence of advanced technology required to generate the image that was not available given the 1300 AD date.
colewd:
I don’t know, and I’m not motivated to find out. As I keep explaining, the evidence is already overwhelmingly against authenticity, and not just the radiocarbon results. As for the radiocarbon results themselves, textile experts examined the area and found zero evidence of a repair. And zero evidence of an invisible reweave, which proponents have absurdly glommed onto in desperation since there are no visible signs of a patch. I have no reason to doubt the experts, so investigating further would be a waste of my time. There are so many other things (like Rasmussen’s counting argument) that are more interesting.
You’re hoping the experts are wrong because you want the Shroud to be authentic, but merely wanting the Shroud to be authentic is not a reason to doubt the experts.
There is zero reason to expect greater heterogeneity elsewhere within the Shroud. The only thing that should create significant heterogeneity would be a repair patch or reweave, and there is no sign of those in the sampled area. And the heterogeneity would have to be huge in order to date the Shroud to the first century. Then there’s this question: if you think the radiocarbon results are wrong, is it just a coincidence that they date the Shroud to the same time range in which it first appeared in the historical record? That would be a huge coincidence. It’s just not plausible, unless you assume a patch or a reweave, of which there is no evidence.
None of those other techniques were validated, and none of them would even be expected to return accurate results given the vast environmental variation that the Shroud would have experienced over the centuries. What’s beautiful about C14 is that its decay rate is unaffected by those variations.
If an unvalidated, unreliable test returns results at odds with the C14 results, it casts doubt on that test, not on the C14 results. As I asked earlier, if I invent a new unvalidated dating method and announce that the Shroud was created in the 1960s, will you accept my conclusion? Should it reduce your confidence in any other dating method that disagrees? Obviously not.
A tie breaker is only relevant if there’s a tie. There isn’t. The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is a fake, and you’re ignoring that evidence. You still haven’t answered my questions:
To which I would add, if there was a repair or a reweave, why can’t textile experts find any evidence of it?
As those questions show, this isn’t a tie that can be nudged one way or the other by a tiebreaker. The score is massively lopsided in favor of the skeptics.
colewd,
Since you’ve latched onto characteristics of the image itself as a way of authenticating the Shroud, here is another characteristic you should consider: the image on the Shroud should be distorted in a particular way if the Shroud was wrapped around a body. It isn’t distorted in that way.
Specifically, the distortion should be lateral. I’ll see if I can find an example image online.
The image on the left shows what the distortion should look like if the Shroud had actually been wrapped around the body of Jesus. It doesn’t look like that, obviously, as the other two images show.
keiths,
And then you follow with bald assertions.
You are assuming the skeptic technical experts are right yet you have no idea on which they base their claim. Why are the skeptic scientists right and those many of which are not Christians wrong? Your argument appears to be simply be an appeal to authority and most likely a biased authority.
You may be right here given some known methods but this requires knowing how the image was made which is the major hole in the skeptics argument.
The date in itself does not eliminate the image as a miracle.
colewd:
Which, amusingly, is a bald assertion. An assertion made with no justification is a bald assertion, and yours qualifies. What are my supposed bald assertions?
Adding ‘bald assertion’ to your homework list:
colewd:
Dude, I’ve been presenting the evidence against authenticity throughout this discussion. I’m not just assuming that the experts are correct. You, on the other hand, blindly assumed that the guys who used the alternate dating methods were right to dispute the C14 results — until I explained to you that they themselves invented those methods, which weren’t validated and wouldn’t be expected to work anyway because they are highly vulnerable to environmental variation.
Think about it: they invented those methods specifically because they wanted the C14 results to be false, not because the C14 results were dubious. (Ditto for the repair theory.) You uncritically accepted their results. And by the way, those guys are not experts in dating while the folks who did the C14 work are.
You’re applying a double standard, and the reason is obvious: you want proponents to be right and you want skeptics to be wrong. It’s emotional, not rational.
I believe the skeptics are right because their arguments make sense while the arguments of the proponents do not.
Adding ‘appeal to authority’ to your homework list above. I’m not saying the Shroud is a fake simply because experts have concluded it’s a fake. I’m considering their evidence and arguments. I understand why the experts think it’s a fake, not just that they do think it’s a fake.
This is a teaching moment: your assertion that the experts are biased is another bald assertion. You haven’t supported it. You’re simply asserting it because you want them to be biased. That would give you an excuse to ignore what they say, and you desperately want to ignore what they say.
It would be an invalid excuse, by the way. If bias were actually disqualifying you’d have to ignore what most of the proponents are saying as well, but you won’t do that because you like what they’re saying.
Further on bias: if you had done your homework, you’d know that one of the textile experts I’ve been mentioning is a Shroud proponent, not a skeptic. She’s actually the person who led the restoration work and she found no patch despite the fact that it would have supported her view.
keiths:
colewd:
It doesn’t require knowing how the image was made. All you need to know is that a burial shroud is wrapped around a body. Think about it. If you wanted to take a photograph of something, would you wrap film around it? The sensor in a camera is flat for a reason. A burial shroud wrapped around a body is not flat.
Huh? You’re talking about a miracle affecting a 14th century shroud that therefore wasn’t Jesus’s?
colewd,
Have you ever thought about what it would take for the repair theory to rescue the Shroud’s authenticity?
1. There would have to be a repair in the first place, and it would have to cover the entire area from which the material was taken.
2. It would have to be a reweave — such a masterful reweave that even the textile experts couldn’t detect it visually.
3.There would have to be a transition zone between the old material and new material in which there was a mix.
4. The samples would had to have come from just the right spot in the transition zone. Otherwise the C14 dates wouldn’t match the time when the Shroud first appears in the historical record.
5. And not just one spot. The three samples came from a strip 8 centimeters long, and two of them were taken from opposite ends. All three would have to have come from just the right spots in the transition zone.
6. With this reasoning, you could literally support any date between the first and 16th centuries (the latter being when the purported repair would have taken place). You’d just have to posit that the samples all happened to have come from places in the transition zone that support your chosen date.
The repair hypothesis is wildy implausible and far less likely to be true than the alternative: there’s no repair, and the reason the Shroud dates to the 14th century is because it was created in the 14th century — by the artist who confessed to creating it.