An Open Letter to Atheists

[Tiger]

Yet another opening paragraphs that says absolutely nothing in response to what I said

Perhaps stop using ChatGPT?

See James, this is why nobody consistently engages with you. You NEVER answer so much as a single query.

You’re hopeless.

 

[AN2]

See James, this is why nobody consistently engages with you. You NEVER answer so much as a single query.

You’re hopeless.

Get some sleep before you have to get up to do your envelope-licking job in a few hours..

You f*cking cretin.

 

[Haven]

you're forced to reckon with the necessary attributes such a cause must possess. It must be:

• Timeless (because time itself began with the Big Bang),
• Spaceless (because space also began then),
• Immaterial (since it exists outside physical matter),
• Uncaused and necessary (since infinite regress is logically incoherent),
• Immensely powerful (it brought the universe into being from non-being),
• And, most crucially, intelligent (because the universe is not random chaos, but rationally ordered and fine-tuned for life and consciousness).

Lets look at the flaws in your curated "necessary attributes":

Timelessness and Spacelessness: The claim that time and space “began” at the Big Bang is based on general relativity, but quantum cosmology models (such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which I've mentioned before) suggest that time may not have a distinct beginning, but could be emergent from more fundamental, timeless quantum conditions. In such models, spacetime is a derived concept, not requiring a timeless or spaceless "cause."

Immateriality: Asserting that the cause must be immaterial assumes a dualistic ontology (mind/matter, spirit/body) without empirical justification. It’s entirely plausible that the cause of our universe is physical but exists in a different form (e.g., a quantum vacuum, multiverse field, or higher-dimensional brane) rather than a supernatural, immaterial entity.

Uncaused and Necessary: The rejection of infinite regress is philosophical, not empirical. Also, asserting that a “necessary being” must exist shifts the problem: why is that being exempt from causality? Declaring it “necessary” is a metaphysical label, not a demonstrated fact.

Powerful: "Power" here is anthropomorphic. The quantum vacuum, for instance, can give rise to particles and energy fluctuations — not through "will" or "power," but through probabilistic laws. Something can give rise to the universe without intent or force, just by obeying natural laws.

Intelligent and Fine-Tuned: Apparent fine-tuning is an illusion caused by selection bias (we're here to observe it because we live in a universe that permits life).

Category Error: To assign human-like attributes (intelligence, will, intent) to the cause of the universe is a category mistake — projecting familiar traits onto what is a physical, impersonal, origin.

The rest of your argument is dead on arrival. The appeal to God as the “best explanation” for the universe is just not compelling, as it relies on your philosophical preferences rather than demonstrable necessity. While the universe may have had a beginning and appears law-governed and fine-tuned, these features do not require an intelligent cause. Natural processes — including quantum events, multiverse models, and emergent laws — offer plausible or evidence-based alternatives. The existence of consciousness and morality is being explored by science through evolutionary and neurological frameworks. Again we do not need to jump a "divine source" just because we dont currently understand all of it.

Above all, pointing to areas where science currently lacks answers does not justify inserting a supernatural explanation - it's a fundamental, basic, error.

We do not need jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge current gaps in knowledge.

If you have anything new to reply with, that's actually intellectually interesting and based on empirical evidence and reasoning, I'll reply.

---

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You lads need to get a fu*king life

 

[Tiger]

Lets look at the flaws in your curated "necessary attributes":

Timelessness and Spacelessness: The claim that time and space “began” at the Big Bang is based on general relativity, but quantum cosmology models (such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which I've mentioned before) suggest that time may not have a distinct beginning, but could be emergent from more fundamental, timeless quantum conditions. In such models, spacetime is a derived concept, not requiring a timeless or spaceless "cause."

What you’ve responded with is simply more of the pretentious evasions of the New Atheist mindset. Materialism’s refusal to consider metaphysical causes is not “empirical,” it’s ideological.

The Hartle-Hawking model rebrands the beginning of time with abstract math to dodge a transcendent Cause. Calling time “emergent” doesn’t explain why anything exists. You’ve simply relocated the mystery into a domain inaccessible to scrutiny—intellectually dishonest, not enlightened.

Immateriality: Asserting that the cause must be immaterial assumes a dualistic ontology (mind/matter, spirit/body) without empirical justification. It’s entirely plausible that the cause of our universe is physical but exists in a different form (e.g., a quantum vacuum, multiverse field, or higher-dimensional brane) rather than a supernatural, immaterial entity.

Ah yes, the dualism dodge.

Yes, reality is dualistic. Logic, mathematics, consciousness—all immaterial realities. Claiming that the cause of the material world must be physical is a category error. Quantum fields or multiverses are not self-existent—they are part of the same contingent order needing explanation.

Uncaused and Necessary: The rejection of infinite regress is philosophical, not empirical. Also, asserting that a “necessary being” must exist shifts the problem: why is that being exempt from causality? Declaring it “necessary” is a metaphysical

Calling something “necessary” isn’t arbitrary—it’s logical. Infinite regress is incoherent. The universe demands a First Cause that is uncaused, eternal, and metaphysically sufficient. Quantum foam doesn’t answer the question—it just postpones it with more speculative layers.

Powerful: "Power" here is anthropomorphic. The quantum vacuum, for instance, can give rise to particles and energy fluctuations — not through "will" or "power," but through probabilistic laws. Something can give rise to the universe without intent or force, just by obeying natural laws.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations are not nothing—they presuppose space, time, laws, and mathematical structure. These don’t arise from non-being. Real power is not brute force, but the ability to create being itself. A vacuum fluctuation can’t tune physical constants or generate intelligibility.

Intelligent and Fine-Tuned: Apparent fine-tuning is an illusion caused by selection bias (we're here to observe it because we live in a universe that permits life).

Category Error: To assign human-like attributes (intelligence, will, intent) to the cause of the universe is a category mistake — projecting familiar traits onto what is a physical, impersonal, origin.

The anthropic principle explains nothing—it’s a tautology. We observe a life-permitting universe because we’re alive? That’s not causation. Fine-tuning remains a precise, measurable reality. The multiverse is an untestable excuse to avoid the clear inference of design.

Also, intelligence isn’t a projection—it’s the only category that explains order, meaning, and rationality. To claim that blind, purposeless forces birthed minds capable of mathematics, art, and morality is not reason—it’s fantasy. Intelligence must come from intelligence.

The rest of your argument is dead on arrival. The appeal to God as the “best explanation” for the universe is just not compelling, as it relies on your philosophical preferences rather than demonstrable necessity. While the universe may have had a beginning and appears law-governed and fine-tuned, these features do not require an intelligent cause. Natural processes — including quantum events, multiverse models, and emergent laws — offer plausible or evidence-based alternatives. The existence of consciousness and morality is being explored by science through evolutionary and neurological frameworks. Again we do not need to jump a "divine source" just because we dont currently understand all of it.

Above all, pointing to areas where science currently lacks answers does not justify inserting a supernatural explanation - it's a fundamental, basic, error.

We do not need jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge current gaps in knowledge.

If you have anything new to reply with, that's actually intellectually interesting and based on empirical evidence and reasoning, I'll reply.

And the tired “God of the gaps” fallacy? This isn’t about plugging holes in ignorance. We’re confronting the intelligibility of everything. Biological life appears suddenly in the fossil record. NDEs display astonishing cross-cultural consistency. The Shroud of Turin defies natural explanation. These are not gaps—they are data.

You demand “empirical evidence”? You’re standing in it. The rational mind you use to deny God is made in His image. The law-bound cosmos you inhabit proclaims design. The very fact that logic, morality, and consciousness exist points to a transcendent source.

The real question is not why some believe in God—but why others go to such desperate, unscientific lengths to avoid Him.

 

[Hermit]

It is?

No, the Big Bang theory describes the, dare I say it, evolution of the universe the moment after t=0 i.e. t>0. Don't let carnies like @Tiger fool you

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory explains how the universe began.

www.space.com

The Big Bang Theory stands as the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe. According to this theory, the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point, which rapidly expanded and continued to stretch over 13.7 billion years.

 

[AN2]

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory explains how the universe began.

www.space.com

If t=0 is the same as a singularity, why would the Big Bang theory have something to say about it when all of physics doesn't?

Please watch the short video in this post -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-127411

 

[Hermit]

If t=0 is the same as a singularity, why would the Big Bang theory have something to say about it when all of physics doesn't?

I'm not following..."all of physics"?...my point was the Big Bang theory does say something about the singularity, but you had said it didn't.

No wonder there are misconceptions about it when it's all so vague and cannot be demonstrated, it requires belief and imagining the entire the universe being condensed into a single point where physics supposedly 'breaks down'. The misconception is compounded with conflicting models, where for example, one model suggests time had a beginning and another model suggests that time didn't have a beginning; or the universe is expanding in one model, and in another it is not expanding.

 

[AN2]

I'm not following..."all of physics"?...my point was the Big Bang theory does say something about the singularity, but you had said it didn't.

It only gets to work as a scientific theory at t>0, we don't have physics for a singularity

No wonder there are misconceptions about it

The misconception I'm fixing here is that it's a "something from nothing" theory, which is a lie repeated by creationist carnies such as Stephen Meyer and John Lennox

when it's all so vague and cannot be demonstrated, it requires belief and imagining the entire the universe being condensed into a single point where physics supposedly 'breaks down'.

Physics breaks down at a singularity

The misconception is compounded with conflicting models, where for example, one model suggests time had a beginning and another model suggests that time didn't have a beginning; or the universe is expanding in one model, and in another it is not expanding.

The expansion of the universe is the Big Bang theory

 

[Haven]

These are philosophical questions, not empirical gaps. And the most intellectually honest minds — from Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga — have consistently acknowledged this.

Speaking of Penrose....


View: https://youtu.be/4MVRziflvBg?si=M5rskl8lEajjvvBC

 

[AN2]

Speaking of Penrose....


View: https://youtu.be/4MVRziflvBg?si=M5rskl8lEajjvvBC

I find the longstanding tradition of FECs (flat-earthers/creationists) citing or referencing people from the scientific community who absolutely do not believe what they believe, hilarious

Similarly when they mock science ("scientism") as a religion

Lord help these people, they're just not that bright

 

[Tiger]

Speaking of Penrose....


View: https://youtu.be/4MVRziflvBg?si=M5rskl8lEajjvvBC

Multiverses are anti-scientific nonsense Tank. Unlike the burial garment of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Shroud of Turin vs. The Multiverse Theory: A Scientific and Epistemological Comparison

Category	Shroud of Turin	Multiverse Theory
Empirical Basis	Directly observable artifact subjected to repeated scientific testing.	No direct observation. Entirely inferential and beyond current empirical access.
Data Collection	Multiple investigations across decades: radiography, spectroscopy, 3D imaging, blood and fiber analysis.	No data. Purely mathematical constructs derived from speculative extensions of quantum cosmology or inflation.
Anomalies	Image has no known precedent; superficial 2-micron image layer, no pigment or dye, photographic negative qualities.	Predicts infinite, causally disconnected realms—none observable, none testable.
Scientific Puzzles	Formation of the image cannot be replicated with medieval or modern techniques. Appears to involve radiation-like burst.	Violates Occam’s Razor. Introduces infinite entities to explain fine-tuning instead of a single intelligent cause.
Peer-Reviewed Studies	Published papers in journals of chemistry, forensic science, textile analysis, physics.	Highly theoretical cosmology journals; zero empirical confirmation. Often overlaps with metaphysical speculation.
Testability (Falsifiability)	Repeatable testing possible: carbon dating (contested), pollen analysis, cloth structure, blood types.	Not falsifiable. No known or conceivable experiment can confirm or disprove the existence of other universes.
Philosophical Implications	Suggests a historically anchored, physical trace of an event with transcendent qualities (i.e., Resurrection).	Suggests the negation of final causality or design—fine-tuning is a brute fact across infinite trials.
Epistemic Weight	Low prior probability, high evidentiary specificity. A unique object with converging lines of evidence.	Very low prior probability, no evidentiary specificity. Infinite variables invoked without one observable.
Cultural/Ideological Role	Historically venerated, yet subjected to scrutiny. Challenges materialism by suggesting a supernatural event intersecting with history.	Functionally used to dismiss arguments for design without addressing the philosophical costs or evidentiary void.

The Shroud of Turin is a data-rich mystery. It is falsifiable, testable, and physically present. Its properties defy known artistic or naturalistic explanations. It interacts with scientific tools and methodologies, producing measurable phenomena that demand explanation. Whether or not one concludes it’s miraculous, it meets every criterion for serious scientific investigation.

The Multiverse theory, by contrast, is a data-free speculation. It is immune to empirical testing, arising from mathematical extensions of other unproven theories (inflation, string theory). It generates no unique predictions and conveniently insulates materialist cosmology from confronting the implications of fine-tuning or contingency. It operates as a philosophical crutch for those unwilling to consider a Mind behind the cosmos.

 

[Tiger]

I find the longstanding tradition of FECs (flat-earthers/creationists) citing or referencing people from the scientific community who absolutely do not believe what they believe, hilarious

Similarly when they mock science ("scientism") as a religion

Lord help these people, they're just not that bright

The reference to Penrose had nothing to do with him being a Theist.

Your comprehension skills are like Schrödinger’s cat - neither dead nor alive, just very confused.

 

[AN2]

The reference to Penrose had nothing to do with him being a Theist.

I find it hard to understand how stupid you are

Here's what you (and other FECs) do: you cite people (in the affirmative) who absolutely do not believe what you believe

If you can find someone on evolution who isn't a creationist carnie, you cite them, even though they believe in evolution (and you don't)

You mock science as a religion.. even though your entire argument is religion

People with an above room temperature IQ simply don't do what you do (I know you don't get that)

Your comprehension skills are like Schrödinger’s cat - neither dead nor alive, just very confused.

 

[Haven]

I find the longstanding tradition of FECs (flat-earthers/creationists) citing or referencing people from the scientific community who absolutely do not believe what they believe, hilarious

Similarly when they mock science ("scientism") as a religion

Lord help these people, they're just not that bright

He now deliberately avoids what Penrose is saying and posts an AI generated table talking about....the Shroud of Turin, a medieval creation.

It's so bald-faced it's actualy kind of fascinating, like gawping at a particularly bad road accident.

The irony is compounded when you consider he is generating these posts using products based on semiconductor technology, where quantum mechanics allows us to describe the electronic properties of those semiconductors.

 

[Tiger]

He now deliberately avoids what Penrose is saying and posts an AI generated table talking about....the Shroud of Turin, a medieval creation.

Firstly, Penrose had nothing of note to say in the video you posted. Multiverses are literally fantasy. There isn’t evidence for 1 other universe never mind an infinite number of universes.

The reason that he desperately clings to the made up multiverse theory might have something to do with the fact that he himself calculated the improbability of the universe’s initial low-entropy state as 1 in 10^10^123, highlighting the extreme fine tuning required. Go figure.

Secondly, the image was not AI generated, it came from a pal of mine at work who produced it in a debate we were having with some other co-workers. Its origin is irrelevant. What’s noteworthy is that what it posits is true. The shroud is actual data and multiverse theory is an imaginary tale.

Thirdly, it doesn’t surprise me that your knowledge of the Shroud is back in 1988. You clearly read as many (zero) books as James has, so you are not well informed.

A 2024 study led by Dr. Liberato De Caro from Italy's Institute of Crystallography employed WAXS (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering) to analyze the structural degradation of the shroud's linen fibers. The results suggest the fabric dates back approximately 2,000 years, aligning with the first century AD. This finding contrasts with the 1988 radiocarbon dating that placed the shroud in the medieval period, between 1260 and 1390. The discrepancy was due to contamination or the sampling of repaired sections of the cloth, not the original cloth.

https://aleteia.org/2024/08/24/new-study-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old

New Scientific Study Proves That The Holy Shroud Dates Back to Jesus Christ’s Time - ZENIT - English

In addition, researcher William Meacham conducted isotopic analyses comparing the shroud's flax fibers to samples from Europe and the Middle East. The study found that the shroud's fibers closely match those from the Levant region, supporting the hypothesis of a Middle Eastern origin.

https://aleteia.org/2024/04/04/new-analysis-of-shroud-of-turin-points-to-levant-origin

There was also a study to analyse the bloodstains and trauma - Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua analysed the bloodstains on the shroud, identifying three distinct types: premortem, postmortem, and serum separation. These findings correspond with the biblical accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. Additionally, the presence of creatinine and high levels of urea in the blood suggests severe trauma and possible renal failure, consistent with the physical suffering described in the Gospels.

New Study: Bloodstains on Shroud of Turin Consistent with Torture of Christ > Diocese of Norwich

Also, it has always been a mystery as to how the image was actually formed on the cloth, so using advanced imaging techniques, including multispectral and hyperspectral imaging, are being utilized to study the shroud's image formation. Some researchers propose that the image could have been formed by a burst of ultraviolet light, a phenomenon not yet reproducible with current technology and certainly not possible to produce 2000 years ago.

 

[Las]

Soulless atheist gimps scare me. Why are they always such revolting creatures?

 

[Tiger]

Here’s a reality check on some of the things that have more evidence of their existence than multiple universes…


Unicorns

• Evidence: Medieval bestiaries, countless eyewitnesses in folklore, cave paintings, and one confused rhinoceros.
• Multiverse comparison: At least unicorns have depictions. Multiverses? Not even a blurry photo.
  
  
  
  
  

Alien Abductions

• Evidence: Thousands of consistent testimonies, polygraph tests, radar anomalies, government whistleblowers.
• Multiverse comparison: Abductees at least report experiences. No one’s ever been abducted by Universe-27B.

Ghosts

• Evidence: Photos, videos, EMF readings, cold spots, haunted houses with long histories.
• Multiverse comparison: Ghosts show up on dodgy CCTV footage. Multiverses don’t even cast shadows.

Bigfoot

• Evidence: Footprints, eyewitnesses, hair samples, blurry footage that refuses to be in HD.
• Multiverse comparison: Bigfoot may be elusive, but he's still got merch. Try finding a T-shirt for "Multiverse #87-B-Chi Omega."

At least with these "imaginary" things, people see or experience something. The multiverse is the only fantasy that requires zero observation, no math consensus, no testability.

 

[AN2]

Firstly, Penrose had nothing of note to say in the video you posted. Multiverses are literally fantasy.

Good God man

There isn’t evidence for 1 other universe never mind an infinite number of universes.

The reason that he desperately clings to the made up multiverse theory might have something to do with the fact that he himself calculated the improbability of the universe’s initial low-entropy state as 1 in 10^10^123, highlighting the extreme fine tuning required. Go figure.

Secondly, the image was not AI generated, it came from a pal of mine at work who produced it in a debate we were having with some other co-workers. Its origin is irrelevant. What’s noteworthy is that what it posits is true. The shroud is actual data and multiverse theory is an imaginary tale.

Thirdly, it doesn’t surprise me that your knowledge of the Shroud is back in 1988. You clearly read as many (zero) books as James has, so you are not well informed.

A 2024 study led by Dr. Liberato De Caro from Italy's Institute of Crystallography employed WAXS (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering) to analyze the structural degradation of the shroud's linen fibers. The results suggest the fabric dates back approximately 2,000 years, aligning with the first century AD. This finding contrasts with the 1988 radiocarbon dating that placed the shroud in the medieval period, between 1260 and 1390. The discrepancy was due to contamination or the sampling of repaired sections of the cloth, not the original cloth.

https://aleteia.org/2024/08/24/new-study-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old

New Scientific Study Proves That The Holy Shroud Dates Back to Jesus Christ’s Time - ZENIT - English

In addition, researcher William Meacham conducted isotopic analyses comparing the shroud's flax fibers to samples from Europe and the Middle East. The study found that the shroud's fibers closely match those from the Levant region, supporting the hypothesis of a Middle Eastern origin.

https://aleteia.org/2024/04/04/new-analysis-of-shroud-of-turin-points-to-levant-origin

There was also a study to analyse the bloodstains and trauma - Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua analysed the bloodstains on the shroud, identifying three distinct types: premortem, postmortem, and serum separation. These findings correspond with the biblical accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. Additionally, the presence of creatinine and high levels of urea in the blood suggests severe trauma and possible renal failure, consistent with the physical suffering described in the Gospels.

New Study: Bloodstains on Shroud of Turin Consistent with Torture of Christ > Diocese of Norwich

Also, it has always been a mystery as to how the image was actually formed on the cloth, so using advanced imaging techniques, including multispectral and hyperspectral imaging, are being utilized to study the shroud's image formation. Some researchers propose that the image could have been formed by a burst of ultraviolet light, a phenomenon not yet reproducible with current technology and certainly not possible to produce 2000 years ago.

 

[AN2]

Returning, once again, to a scene of a cataclysmic failure by @Tiger as I previously did here -

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-134040

That (dishonesty titled) video was initially introduced to us by Tiger here -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-130758

To give Tiger some credit (if you could call it that), he couldn't possibly have watched it, based on the description he gave of it

More to follow...

 

[AN2]

Returning, once again, to a scene of a cataclysmic failure by @Tiger as I previously did here -

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-134040

That (dishonesty titled) video was initially introduced to us by Tiger here -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-130758

To give Tiger some credit (if you could call it that), he couldn't possibly have watched it, based on the description he gave of it

More to follow...

Following Tiger's initial introduction of the video, I then posted a reply which can now not be found in the (bastardised) Origins Thread, following the worst decision by an Administrator in all of Irish political fora's history, giving Tiger (who's a censor by nature), full editorial control of the thread

And so he (Tiger) deleted it

More to follow...

 

[AN2]

Following Tiger's initial introduction of the video, I then posted a reply which can now not be found in the (bastardised) Origins Thread, following the worst decision by an Administrator in all of Irish political fora's history, giving Tiger (who's a censor by nature), full editorial control of the thread

And so he (Tiger) deleted it

More to follow...

I did of course watch the video (By Daily Dose Of Special Needs) myself and it contains such profundity as this -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ideGFF6QR0&t=20m20s

There are some interesting mathematical ideas about the size of infinity but the creationist carnie above wasn't talking about that

Now I'm going to give @Tiger the same hint that I gave him with Greene (in the post he deleted)

Hint: Penrose isn't talking about the multiverse

 

[Haven]

Firstly, Penrose had nothing of note to say in the video you posted. Multiverses are literally fantasy. There isn’t evidence for 1 other universe never mind an infinite number of universes.

Now you want to disavow Penrose!

And he wasn't talking about multiverses in the video. I was wondering why you suddenly were whining about that but now I know: you didn't watch the video.

The reason that he desperately clings to the made up multiverse theory might have something to do with the fact that he himself calculated the improbability of the universe’s initial low-entropy state as 1 in 10^10^123, highlighting the extreme fine tuning required. Go figure.

Secondly, the image was not AI generated, it came from a pal of mine at work who produced it in a debate we were having with some other co-workers. Its origin is irrelevant. What’s noteworthy is that what it posits is true. The shroud is actual data and multiverse theory is an imaginary tale.

Oh dear.

Thirdly, it doesn’t surprise me that your knowledge of the Shroud is back in 1988. You clearly read as many (zero) books as James has, so you are not well informed.

A 2024 study led by Dr. Liberato De Caro from Italy's Institute of Crystallography employed WAXS (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering) to analyze the structural degradation of the shroud's linen fibers. The results suggest the fabric dates back approximately 2,000 years, aligning with the first century AD. This finding contrasts with the 1988 radiocarbon dating that placed the shroud in the medieval period, between 1260 and 1390. The discrepancy was due to contamination or the sampling of repaired sections of the cloth, not the original cloth.

https://aleteia.org/2024/08/24/new-study-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old

New Scientific Study Proves That The Holy Shroud Dates Back to Jesus Christ’s Time - ZENIT - English

Yet the good Dr. and his team stress that their results can only be accurate if future research finds evidence that the relic was kept safely at an average room temperature of around 22°C (71.6 °F) with a relative humidity of about 55 percent for 1,300 years before it appeared in the historical record.

In addition, researcher William Meacham conducted isotopic analyses comparing the shroud's flax fibers to samples from Europe and the Middle East. The study found that the shroud's fibers closely match those from the Levant region, supporting the hypothesis of a Middle Eastern origin.

https://aleteia.org/2024/04/04/new-analysis-of-shroud-of-turin-points-to-levant-origin

I have read some books on this and it had led me to believe the Levant region also existed in medieval times. I think it still exists today!

There was also a study to analyse the bloodstains and trauma - Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua analysed the bloodstains on the shroud, identifying three distinct types: premortem, postmortem, and serum separation. These findings correspond with the biblical accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. Additionally, the presence of creatinine and high levels of urea in the blood suggests severe trauma and possible renal failure, consistent with the physical suffering described in the Gospels.

New Study: Bloodstains on Shroud of Turin Consistent with Torture of Christ > Diocese of Norwich

Was this peer-reviewed?

No. Of course not.

Also, it has always been a mystery as to how the image was actually formed on the cloth, so using advanced imaging techniques, including multispectral and hyperspectral imaging, are being utilized to study the shroud's image formation. Some researchers propose that the image could have been formed by a burst of ultraviolet light, a phenomenon not yet reproducible with current technology and certainly not possible to produce 2000 years ago.

Why not be dramatic about it, if you are going to speculate anyway?

https://religiondispatches.org/latest-shroud-of-turin-theory-nuclear-emissions/

"Last week, Professor Alberto Carpinteri of Turin Polytechnic claimed that the image of a man’s face on the Shroud of Turin, that piece of cloth believed to be the burial shroud of Christ, was caused by nuclear emissions from an earthquake that hit Jerusalem in the year 33 AD."

 

[Fishalt]

I did of course watch the video (By Daily Dose Of Special Needs) myself and it contains such profundity as this -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ideGFF6QR0&t=20m20s

There are some interesting mathematical ideas about the size of infinity but the creationist carnie above wasn't talking about that

Now I'm going to give @Tiger the same hint that I gave him with Greene (in the post he deleted)

Hint: Penrose isn't talking about the multiverse

Christianity does seem to be on the upwswing and this doesn't especially bother me because it tends to coincide with conservative values. I'd rather live with people who fear an omnipotent moral creator which imposes morality clauses on them and drives them, albeit abstractly and occasionally invectively, towards good and self-sacrifice than with souless woke atheist troons who believe in nothing beyond the fulfilment of their endless panoply of needs and narcissistic desires. In fact, I believe this is what is driving the increase in religious subscription; meaninglessness. A combination of meaninglessness and cultural isolation, alienation. I've never met a man who just found Jesus after hitting the lottery, if you know what I mean.

You know, I was watching the latest Season of Clarkson's Farm recently, and in one episode Jeremy was going over the collapse of the English village which is well underway currently. It was very revealing. He made the point that village doctors no longer really exist, and that pubs are collapsing hand-over-fist. So are local shops. What exactly is a village? If there's no local doctor, no local shops, and not even a local watering hole...what exactly is left? A kind of housing estate. Whatever that is, it's not a village.

Christianity isn't the threat. Christians like Tiger are. It's important that the evangelical equivalent of O'Brian from 1984 (albeit far stupider) and his ilk remain relegated to where they belong: On the street corner with a megaphone, and a large picket sign emblazoned with some slogan that is completely; polemical or anodine, but equally retarded in either case.

 

[Tiger]

Now you want to disavow Penrose!

And he wasn't talking about multiverses in the video. I was wondering why you suddenly were whining about that but now I know: you didn't watch the video.


Oh dear.

Tank, your comprehension skills are as poor as James's. Like James, you post videos with no proper commentary, presuming that everyone will interpret them in the same mangled way that your brain has digested them. That's why 90% of James's posts are completely incoherent. Sarsfields answer to ‘Dumb and Dumber’.

He was talking about multiverses (more than one Universe).

The word “Universes” in the title was your first clue, friend. Plurality implies multiplicity. This is not esoteric code—it’s basic grammar. When Penrose speaks of a succession of cosmic “aeons,” each birthed from the thermal death of the last, he is speaking plainly of multiple universes—not arranged side-by-side, but in an eternal procession, each replacing the previous like pages in a cosmic ledger. That’s literally a chicken-and-egg cosmology - with one universe giving birth to another in an infinite regress with no absolute beginning.

This isn’t some fresh empirical revelation; it’s a repackaged form of Pythagorean metaphysics—a mythology with equations in place of gods. And like all occult systems cloaked in scientific respectability, it pushes origins further into abstraction so as to evade the obvious: something must explain the whole.

Penrose calls this theory “conformal cyclic cosmology.” Sounds impressive. But what is it in substance? An infinite regress of universes without origin or cause. It’s cosmogenesis without God, dressed in geometric jargon and served with the implicit demand: “Don’t question the high priests of physics.” But question we must.

The man admits his model is hard to swallow—and for good reason. A universe that stretches, dies, and somehow reboots itself into a fresh cosmos (with all entropy reset and clocks wound to zero) is just another creation myth, minus the courage to name the Creator.

So no, I’m not “whining,” nor am I “disavowing” Penrose. I am exposing the quiet fraud of pretending that his proposal is not a form of multiverse theory—when that is precisely what it is. Whether your universes are stacked vertically across time or horizontally across dimensions, you’re still multiplying cosmoses to dodge the singularity of creation.

This is not science in the noble sense. It is high-order obfuscation—a Gnostic flight from metaphysical responsibility, disguised as rational progress. It has no empirical ballast. It’s pure fantasy.

 

[AN2]

Now you want to disavow Penrose!

From hero to zero in the space of a couple of posts

And he wasn't talking about multiverses in the video.

They're obsessed!

If you watch the few minutes of Brian Greene talking that Daily Dose provides in his video, he (Greene) isn't talking about the multiverse, he's actually questioning the "fine-tuning argument" itself but all Daily Dose hears is - multiverse, multiverse, multiverse. And the creationist clowns think that "fine-tuning" is a done and dusted deal that demands! an explanation from physics

Penrose of course isn't a proponent of the multiverse and has his own theory of a single, cyclical universe

Deary me

I was wondering why you suddenly were whining about that but now I know: you didn't watch the video.


Oh dear.

Yet the good Dr. and his team stress that their results can only be accurate if future research finds evidence that the relic was kept safely at an average room temperature of around 22°C (71.6 °F) with a relative humidity of about 55 percent for 1,300 years before it appeared in the historical record.


I have read some books on this and it had led me to believe the Levant region also existed in medieval times. I think it still exists today!


Was this peer-reviewed?

No. Of course not.

Why not be dramatic about it, if you are going to speculate anyway?

https://religiondispatches.org/latest-shroud-of-turin-theory-nuclear-emissions/

"Last week, Professor Alberto Carpinteri of Turin Polytechnic claimed that the image of a man’s face on the Shroud of Turin, that piece of cloth believed to be the burial shroud of Christ, was caused by nuclear emissions from an earthquake that hit Jerusalem in the year 33 AD."

 

[Tiger]

From hero to zero in the space of a couple of posts


They're obsessed!

If you watch the few minutes of Brian Greene talking that Daily Dose provides in his video, he (Greene) isn't talking about the multiverse, he's actually questioning the "fine-tuning argument" itself but all Daily Dose hears is - multiverse, multiverse, multiverse. And the creationist clowns think that "fine-tuning" is a done and dusted deal that demands! an explanation from physics

Penrose of course isn't a proponent of the multiverse and has his own theory of a single, cyclical universe

Deary me

More incoherent babble.

Nothing to say usual.

 

[AN2]

More incoherent babble.

"Incoherent" to you, yes

Nothing to say usual.

 

[AN2]

Tank, your comprehension skills are as poor as James's. Like James, you post videos with no proper commentary, presuming that everyone will interpret them in the same mangled way that your brain has digested them. That's why 90% of James's posts are completely incoherent. Sarsfields answer to ‘Dumb and Dumber’.

He was talking about multiverses (more than one Universe).

The word “Universes” in the title was your first clue, friend. Plurality implies multiplicity. This is not esoteric code—it’s basic grammar.

All you're doing is proving that you're a f*cking clown

Penrose advocates for his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), which suggests that the universe undergoes a series of cycles of expansion and contraction, rather than a multiverse.

When Penrose speaks of a succession of cosmic “aeons,” each birthed from the thermal death of the last, he is speaking plainly of multiple universes—not arranged side-by-side, but in an eternal procession, each replacing the previous like pages in a cosmic ledger. That’s literally a chicken-and-egg cosmology - with one universe giving birth to another in an infinite regress with no absolute beginning.

This isn’t some fresh empirical revelation; it’s a repackaged form of Pythagorean metaphysics—a mythology with equations in place of gods. And like all occult systems cloaked in scientific respectability, it pushes origins further into abstraction so as to evade the obvious: something must explain the whole.

Penrose calls this theory “conformal cyclic cosmology.” Sounds impressive. But what is it in substance? An infinite regress of universes without origin or cause. It’s cosmogenesis without God, dressed in geometric jargon and served with the implicit demand: “Don’t question the high priests of physics.” But question we must.

The man admits his model is hard to swallow—and for good reason. A universe that stretches, dies, and somehow reboots itself into a fresh cosmos (with all entropy reset and clocks wound to zero) is just another creation myth, minus the courage to name the Creator.

So no, I’m not “whining,” nor am I “disavowing” Penrose. I am exposing the quiet fraud of pretending that his proposal is not a form of multiverse theory—when that is precisely what it is. Whether your universes are stacked vertically across time or horizontally across dimensions, you’re still multiplying cosmoses to dodge the singularity of creation.

This is not science in the noble sense. It is high-order obfuscation—a Gnostic flight from metaphysical responsibility, disguised as rational progress. It has no empirical ballast. It’s pure fantasy.

 

[Haven]

Tank, your comprehension skills are as poor as James's. Like James, you post videos with no proper commentary, presuming that everyone will interpret them in the same mangled way that your brain has digested them. That's why 90% of James's posts are completely incoherent. Sarsfields answer to ‘Dumb and Dumber’.

He was talking about multiverses (more than one Universe).

The word “Universes” in the title was your first clue, friend. Plurality implies multiplicity. This is not esoteric code—it’s basic grammar. When Penrose speaks of a succession of cosmic “aeons,” each birthed from the thermal death of the last, he is speaking plainly of multiple universes—not arranged side-by-side, but in an eternal procession, each replacing the previous like pages in a cosmic ledger. That’s literally a chicken-and-egg cosmology - with one universe giving birth to another in an infinite regress with no absolute beginning.

This isn’t some fresh empirical revelation; it’s a repackaged form of Pythagorean metaphysics—a mythology with equations in place of gods. And like all occult systems cloaked in scientific respectability, it pushes origins further into abstraction so as to evade the obvious: something must explain the whole.

Penrose calls this theory “conformal cyclic cosmology.” Sounds impressive. But what is it in substance? An infinite regress of universes without origin or cause. It’s cosmogenesis without God, dressed in geometric jargon and served with the implicit demand: “Don’t question the high priests of physics.” But question we must.

The man admits his model is hard to swallow—and for good reason. A universe that stretches, dies, and somehow reboots itself into a fresh cosmos (with all entropy reset and clocks wound to zero) is just another creation myth, minus the courage to name the Creator.

So no, I’m not “whining,” nor am I “disavowing” Penrose. I am exposing the quiet fraud of pretending that his proposal is not a form of multiverse theory—when that is precisely what it is. Whether your universes are stacked vertically across time or horizontally across dimensions, you’re still multiplying cosmoses to dodge the singularity of creation.

This is embarrassing. It really is.

You explictly mentioned Multiverse Theory in your post above in response to the Penrose video (in that toe-curling comparison table with the Shroud of Turin).
In that theory Universes are thought to often be causally disconnected — they do not influence each other directly. Time may be different in each universe, or even nonexistent in some formulations. There's no guarantee of a beginning or end.

In the Penrose CCC Theory, time is cyclical, with a defined causal link from one aeon to the next. The end of one universe is the cause of the next.

They are very different theories. Which you clearly did not understand at the time of posting.

This is not science in the noble sense. It is high-order obfuscation—a Gnostic flight from metaphysical responsibility, disguised as rational progress. It has no empirical ballast. It’s pure fantasy.

Tiger, displaying an colossal ego that is increasing faster than the expansion rate of the Universe, calls out a Nobel Laureate in Physics, someone he was namechecking just a few posts ago.

I will have to go lie down for a while.

 

[Tiger]

All you're doing is proving that you're a f*cking clown

Penrose advocates for his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), which suggests that the universe undergoes a series of cycles of expansion and contraction, rather than a multiverse.

Congratulations on being able to copy and paste James. Well done.

Just because Penrose has interesting things to say about our visible and measurable universe, doesn’t mean that everything that comes out of his gob is gospel.

By definition, any theory that involves more universes than our universe is a multiverse theory. There can be an infinite number of ‘multiverse theories’ with different flavours.

Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a multiverse theory—just dressed in different robes. Instead of multiple co-existing universes like in inflationary models, Penrose proposes a sequence: universe after universe, endlessly, one birthing the next. That’s still a multi-verse. Whether stacked side by side or lined up through time, it’s the same metaphysical evasion.

He doesn’t escape the need for a true origin—he simply defers it. His “conformal mapping” trick magically turns the frozen death of one cosmos into the fiery birth of another, without empirical basis. It’s not science—it’s theoretical mythology.

Penrose rejects other multiverse models in preference to this own. But that’s like a fraudster disapproving of another conman’s method while running his own. The cyclical universe is just multiverse dogma rebranded: infinite regress masquerading as cosmology.

This isn’t metaphysical clarity—it’s escapism. And calling it anything else is just semantic camouflage for the same speculative vacuum.

Anyhoo, the point is....there is as much evidence for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology as there is for the trendier - 'bubble universes expanding in space' proposed by string theorists......absolutely none.

Both are fantasy. It's all deflection.

 

[AN2]

Congratulations on being able to copy and paste James. Well done.

Just because Penrose has interesting things to say about our visible and measurable universe, doesn’t mean that everything that comes out of his gob is gospel.

Said no one

By definition, any theory that involves more universes than our universe is a multiverse theory. There can be an infinite number of ‘multiverse theories’ with different flavours.

Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a multiverse theory—just dressed in different robes. Instead of multiple co-existing universes like in inflationary models, Penrose proposes a sequence: universe after universe, endlessly, one birthing the next. That’s still a multi-verse. Whether stacked side by side or lined up through time, it’s the same metaphysical evasion.

He doesn’t escape the need for a true origin—he simply defers it. His “conformal mapping” trick magically turns the frozen death of one cosmos into the fiery birth of another, without empirical basis. It’s not science—it’s theoretical mythology.

Penrose rejects other multiverse models in preference to this own. But that’s like a fraudster disapproving of another conman’s method while running his own. The cyclical universe is just multiverse dogma rebranded: infinite regress masquerading as cosmology.

This isn’t metaphysical clarity—it’s escapism. And calling it anything else is just semantic camouflage for the same speculative vacuum.

Anyhoo, the point is....there is as much evidence for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology as there is for the trendier - 'bubble universes expanding in space' proposed by string theorists......absolutely none.

Both are fantasy. It's all deflection.

Deflection from what, your creation myth?

 

[AN2]

This is embarrassing. It really is.

You explictly mentioned Multiverse Theory in your post above in response to the Penrose video (in that toe-curling comparison table with the Shroud of Turin).

I think it's obvious what happened here

Tiger realised that he made a PDF (Poor Dumb Fool) of himself and, instead of admitting his mistake, decided to get on to Google, ChatGPT (perhaps consult his co-worker ).. and double down

And now he's babbling about how it doesn't matter if it's horizontal or vertical stacking blah, blah, blah, it's all multiverse!

Google Search

In that theory Universes are thought to often be causally disconnected — they do not influence each other directly. Time may be different in each universe, or even nonexistent in some formulations. There's no guarantee of a beginning or end.

In the Penrose CCC Theory, time is cyclical, with a defined causal link from one aeon to the next. The end of one universe is the cause of the next.

They are very different theories. Which you clearly did not understand at the time of posting.


Tiger, displaying an colossal ego that is increasing faster than the expansion rate of the Universe, calls out a Nobel Laureate in Physics, someone he was namechecking just a few posts ago.

I will have to go lie down for a while.

 

[Tiger]

This is embarrassing. It really is.

You explictly mentioned Multiverse Theory in your post above in response to the Penrose video (in that toe-curling comparison table with the Shroud of Turin).
In that theory Universes are thought to often be causally disconnected — they do not influence each other directly. Time may be different in each universe, or even nonexistent in some formulations. There's no guarantee of a beginning or end.

In the Penrose CCC Theory, time is cyclical, with a defined causal link from one aeon to the next. The end of one universe is the cause of the next.

They are very different theories. Which you clearly did not understand at the time of posting.


Tiger, displaying an colossal ego that is increasing faster than the expansion rate of the Universe, calls out a Nobel Laureate in Physics, someone he was namechecking just a few posts ago.

I will have to go lie down for a while.

Haha, the phucking irony

What happened is that you and James (50/50) Dawson - don't know the difference between singular and plural. Dumb and Dumber.

You're trying to correct me by... repeating my exact explanation. Yes, multiverse theories come in varieties—some posit coexisting, causally disconnected realms, others (like Penrose’s CCC) propose a temporal sequence of distinct universes, or “aeons,” each causally linked. But let’s not pretend this semantic tap-dance changes the core reality:

A theory proposing multiple distinct universes—sequential or parallel—is, by definition, a multi-verse theory.

The title of the video that you posted was —“An Infinite Series of Universes”—doesn’t exactly bury the phucking lead. “Universes,” plural, means just that: multiple universes. Whether they sit beside each other or arise one after the other in some entropy-resetting cycle is irrelevant to the basic classification. That’s a multiverse.

Trying to exclude Penrose’s theory from the multiverse category just because it follows a temporal sequence is like saying a train isn’t a series of cars because they’re connected end to end instead of side by side.

So yes, I understood it perfectly well. The embarrassment, respectfully, is yours—for mistaking packaging for substance and missing that all such theories sidestep the deeper question of origins by replacing creation with infinite repetition.

 

[Haven]

Haha, the phucking irony

What happened is that you and James (50/50) Dawson - don't know the difference between singular and plural. Dumb and Dumber.

You're trying to correct me by... repeating my exact explanation. Yes, multiverse theories come in varieties—some posit coexisting, causally disconnected realms, others (like Penrose’s CCC) propose a temporal sequence of distinct universes, or “aeons,” each causally linked. But let’s not pretend this semantic tap-dance changes the core reality:

A theory proposing multiple distinct universes—sequential or parallel—is, by definition, a multi-verse theory.

The title of the video that you posted was —“An Infinite Series of Universes”—doesn’t exactly bury the phucking lead. “Universes,” plural, means just that: multiple universes. Whether they sit beside each other or arise one after the other in some entropy-resetting cycle is irrelevant to the basic classification. That’s a multiverse.

Trying to exclude Penrose’s theory from the multiverse category just because it follows a temporal sequence is like saying a train isn’t a series of cars because they’re connected end to end instead of side by side.

So yes, I understood it perfectly well. The embarrassment, respectfully, is yours—for mistaking packaging for substance and missing that all such theories sidestep the deeper question of origins by replacing creation with infinite repetition.

Tiger be like....

Two different theories are the same cos Tiger says so. That takes balls. He's even browbeating poor old dope Roger Penrose who only has a Nobel Prize and is Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

General Mod Warning; Please keep from slander.

 

[AN2]

Tiger be like....

Two different theories are the same cos Tiger says so. That takes balls. He's even browbeating poor old dope Roger Penrose who only has a Nobel Prize and is Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford.

He's a textbook case of being too stupid to know that he's stupid, off-the-charts Dunning-Kruger

 

[AN2]

General Mod Warning; Please keep from slander.

I hope that when the offence is repeated (and it will) that a ban ensues..

 

[AN2]

Deflection from what, your creation myth?

So, no answer there

"Theoretical physics is a deflection from my creation myth."

What a dumb, whiney ass titty baby

 

[Tiger]

He's a textbook case of being too stupid to know that he's stupid, off-the-charts Dunning-Kruger

Says the guy who can’t differentiate singular from plural.