Evidence for God’s Existence

1.  The image of the man on the cloth: the image is not a stain. It is not painted on the shroud. It is not burned on in a conventional manner. Instead it is an image seared on to the cloth with some technology that has yet to be explained. Not only can they not reproduce the image using medieval technologies, they can’t reproduce it with modern technology.
2. The 3-D capabilities of the image – the image of the man on the shroud can be read by 3-D imaging technology. Paintings fail this test.
3. The Positive-Negative Image – the image is a photographic negative. That means when a traditional photograph is taken what should be the negative appears as a positive image. If it is a medieval painting how did they do that and why?
4. The anatomical accuracy – not only is it an accurate image of a dead man but the image is distorted as it should be if it was laying over a real body and the body vanished from within it
5. The historical accuracy to crucifixion – the wounds are all consistent not only with Roman crucifixion, but the details of Jesus’ particular crucifixion like the crown of thorns, no broken bones the scourging and the wound in the side.
6. Geographical accuracy – pollen from the shroud is not only from the Jerusalem area, but from Turkey and the other places the shroud is supposed to have resided, dust from the area on the shroud by the knees and feet is from the area of Jerusalem
7. The accuracy to Jewish burial customs – the shroud shows details perfectly consistent with first century Jewish burial customs. There are even microscopic traces of the flower that would have been used in the burial–flowers that grew locally and were known to be used for burial.
8. The blood and the image – the blood was on the shroud first. The image happened later. If it was painted (there is not evidence of paint anywhere) the two would be part of the same faked image
9. The type of cloth The cloth is consistent with fabrics from first century Israel, but not with medieval Europe. A forger would have had to not only forge the image in some as yet undiscovered way, but would have had to have detailed knowledge of linen weaves of the first century and then not only reproduce it, but age it convincingly.
10. The age of the cloth – The 1987 carbon 14 tests are now believed to have been taken from an area of the cloth that was not simply patched in the middle ages but patched with a difficult to detect interweaving and the carbon 14 tests were therefore compromised. The latest technology and testing suggests a date for the shroud between 200 BC and 200AD. Go here for news of Professor Fanti’s test in 2013

The only piece of evidence from the shroud which doesn’t match up is the 1987 carbon testing. When considering evidence and you have nine items which fit with the known facts and fit with each other, but you have one piece of evidence which does not fit, it is common sense to challenge that one piece of evidence and reject it or try again to see why it doesn’t fit. This is what Fanti’s research has done and proven that the 1987 tests were faulty.

If atheists really want evidence for the existence of God, then they should seek genuine evidence of a miracle, and they should do so objectively, carefully and with an open mind.

There’s plenty of excellent scientific evidence for the shroud out there. They should take a look.