Just Too Cool: Measuring instruments altered by electromagnetic disturbances when placed on Christ’s tomb

I just finished writing a brief piece about technology (for the Catholic Herald) and I ran across this from EWTN UK.  You may have read that restoration work and scientific examination of the Edicule which encloses the Christ’s empty tomp was undertaken in October.  …

Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud

On October 26, 27 and 28, 2016 a group of scientists and religious authorities oversaw the removal of the marble slab that covers the tomb of Christ. Marie-Armelle Beaulieu, editor-in-chief of Terre Sainte Magazine, reports that some of the measuring instruments used by scientists were altered by electromagnetic disturbances when they were placed directly on the stone in which Christ’s body rested. The scientists reports that their measuring devices either malfunctioned or ceased to work at all. Aleteiareports

The phenomenon was confirmed by one of the scientists authorized to access the tomb. Later, one of the heads of the building and construction team, Antonia Moropoulou, indicated that it is really hard to imagine that someone would be willing to put in danger his or her reputation just because of a “publicity stunt.” Moreover, the journalist testifies to the scientists’ surprise during the opening of the slab: they hoped that the grave would be much lower than it was. Their conclusion: previously performed analyses with the instruments seemed to have been distorted by an electromagnetic disturbance.

The observation of unusual electromagnetic disturbances at the tomb of Our Lord may support a scientific hypothesis proposed to explain the creation of the mysterious image on the Holy Shroud of Turin. …

[…]

It goes on to talk about the amount of energy that would have to be emitted by a special kind of laser to produce a man-sized image on a linen cloth like the Shroud:

2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts

Just. Too. Cool.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Just Too Cool and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Just Too Cool: Measuring instruments altered by electromagnetic disturbances when placed on Christ’s tomb

  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this like, I dunno, maybe a God-man rose from the dead there or something.

  2. Kent Wendler says:

    I’ve wondered if unusual traces of radiation of some sort might be found in the walls of His tomb.

    Clearly (at least apparently, to me) our Lord would require nothing such for His Resurrection, but it could be a kind of message to us, some 2000 years later.

  3. jfk03 says:

    The angelic powers were before Your tomb,
    The guards became as dead men,
    Mary stood at your grave,
    Seeking your most pure body;
    You plundered Hades without tasting its corruption;
    You returned to greet the Virgin and gave life to the world.
    O Lord who rose from the dead,
    Glory to You.

  4. un-ionized says:

    Measuring instruments, electromagnetic disturbances, yeah, right. Use enough big words that the pseudointellectuals think they understand and it’s just a miracle. A miracle that people are so gullible. Since when do Christians need “scientific instruments” to confirm their faith? Were any real scientists involved?

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    It goes on to talk about the amount of energy that would have to be emitted by a special kind of laser to produce a man-sized image on a linen cloth like the Shroud:

    2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts

    This deserves some explanation — the only method discovered so far whereby one could create even a facsimile of the Shroud of Turin on similar cloth of the same dimensions is an ultraviolet laser and that amount of energy — problem : no such laser exists yet, and so reproducing the Shroud is a technical impossibility.

    un-ionized :

    Measuring instruments, electromagnetic disturbances, yeah, right. Use enough big words that the pseudointellectuals think they understand and it’s just a miracle. A miracle that people are so gullible. Since when do Christians need “scientific instruments” to confirm their faith? Were any real scientists involved?

    The atheists keep on demanding “evidence”, and yet when and where evidence does indeed exist, they almost invariably reject it out of hand, unexamined.

    It is a large number of atheists, though to be fair not all of them, who have difficulties with scientific evidence ; not Christians, not in general. Christians are not magically “less educated” just on the say-so of some blatantly self-referential atheist claims and “studies”.

  6. graytown says:

    “… and many would still not believe, even if He rose from the dead.”

  7. Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | Big Pulpit

  8. iprimap says:

    Please correct my arithmetic if I err. It is still before 6 am EST (though this may be posted slightly after 6 am), and I have to get ready for my day job at Neutrons’R Us.
    .
    “2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts”
    .
    34 thousand billion watts is:
    .
    34000 billion watts
    .
    34,000,000,000,000,000 watts.
    .
    The Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant at which I worked for 20+ years generates 1000 MWe or one thousand megawatts electric.
    .
    1000 MWe is 1,000,000,000 watts where mega = a million (kilo being a thousand).
    .
    The power alleged to have shone on the Shroud of Turin works out to be equivalent to the electrical power output of 34,000,000 nuclear power plants.
    .
    Even exposed to that kind of power for one second, that kind of energy – 34 thousand billion joules in one second – would incinerate the Shroud of Turin, whether released in the form of infra-red light, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays of gamma rays.
    .
    Therefore, I do not regard “2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts” as a credible explanation.

  9. Nan says:

    @iprimap, all things are possible with God. He is not bound to earthly calculations.

  10. LarryW2LJ says:

    That the Lord would not only leave us His image on the Shroud, but also traces of the energy used in the miracle of His Resurrection …….. way cool! In a world gone mad, where science has become a religion and its devotees scoff at the possibilities of miracles……. scientific evidence that those miracles did indeed take place. Mind boggling! Not that His disciples need these proofs; but for the “Thomases” out there ……….. (with apologies to St. Thomas, whose name I took at Confirmation).

  11. iprimap says:

    Nan,
    .
    Define earthly calculations. Physics calculations apply equally whether on Earth or Mars or Alpha Centauri or Andromeda. God made the universe to obey the Laws of Physics and Mathematics. Even Physicist Michu Kaku has come around to admitting that perhaps the language of God is mathematics. I am not a theologian, so I cannot say, but God is logical (the Logos).
    .
    Now this I can say: the Shroud of Turin (if it is really the Shroud of Christ and I think it is) would be a true miracle. There is no need to generate science fiction to explain that miracle. Furthermore, if someone starts using numbers and physics to explain how the Shroud was imprinted with the image of Christ, then the numbers and physics had better work out, otherwise its just science function.
    .
    A few facts are in order:
    .
    Power (watts) is energy (joules) per unit time (seconds)
    Energy (joules) is force (newtons) expended over a distance (meters)
    It is energy that causes the physical changes in a substance, not power because even an immense power over picoseconds leaves little energy and even a small amount of power in millwatts over a very long time deposits a lot of energy. So I want to know: how much real energy was deposited on the Shroud. Throwing around numbers like 34 thousand billion watts is impressive to the layman, but an engineer or sicentist knows better.
    .
    .
    Now let’s consider a few things.
    .
    One Hiroshima nuclear bomb is 15 kilotons of TNT or 62760000000000 joules.
    .
    The amount of power alleged to have impacted the Shroud of Turin is 34000000000000000 watts or 34000000000000000 joules per second.
    .
    That many joules in one second is equivalent to 541.75 Hiroshima bombs.
    .
    Jerusalem and all surrounding area would have been destroyed.
    .
    Period.
    .
    We should stick with the miracle and stop with the science fiction.
    .
    BTW, if there is residual electromagnetic phenomena in the place where Christ was buried, then how many Gauss (electrostatic units per centimeter squared) is the magnetic field outside the burial place? By the inverse square law we can compute Gauss inside the burial place before excessive Gauss causes iinstrument malfunction.
    .
    Or is it an electric field? Then how many Newtons per Coulomb is it?
    .
    Or is it electromagnetic radiation? In what frequency (radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray or gamma)? And what is its intensity (dB for radio, lumens for visible, rad for gammmas)?
    .
    All these things are measureable. Instruments don’t just quit to function inside the burial place without first giving signs of rising levels by the inverse square law (Gauss, Newtons/cm^2, dB, lumens, rad, etc). God is not irrational and does not suspend physics willy nilly.
    .
    BTW, I think we can safely rule out lumens otherwise people would have seen visible light, and we can rule out infrared, otherwise people would have felt heat.
    .
    Either we should get the physics right or we should stop using physics to explain the miracle.
    .
    And yes, if my arithmetic is wrong, please correct. We have a process in nuclear power for design verification of safety-related calculations, but I didn’t get that done here.
    .
    ;-)
    .
    We need to be credible as Christians so that we don’t become the laughing stock of atheists and pagans.

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    iprimap :

    Please correct my arithmetic if I err. It is still before 6 am EST (though this may be posted slightly after 6 am), and I have to get ready for my day job at Neutrons’R Us.
    .
    “2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts”

    You’re neglecting the time factor, just to quibble — there’s no requirement, in the original “specs” of what a facsimile of the Shroud would require, that the energy output from a theoretical ultraviolet laser source should take one single second nor even just one laser beam.

    The “specs” anyway overtly point out the technical impossibility — I mean, I can *conceive* of a hypothetical laser printer with high enough resolution from a sufficient number of emission sources each equivalent to the most powerful ultraviolet laser currently available ; but otherwise you’re right, where on Earth would you find your magic power source ?

    Producing your Shroud 1 cm2 by 1 cm2 with say 1024 laser sources emitting regular one second pulses to that area at 2000 MW total capacity or about 2 MW each, which is reasonable and coherent with the “specs” of the magic future laser technology in question — and localised incineration is indeed the purpose, and bearing in mind that your “light” areas would need far less output.

    Assuming one pulse per minute, 17,000 minutes = 283 hours 20 minutes or so, and for the “dark” areas of our pseudo-Shroud up to ~15-30% of the output of a nuclear power plant with twice the energy output of the one you worked at, but for much of the artefact’s area a lot less, over a twelve day period (let’s pretend we have all the necessary magic superconductors too and that the only heat produced is the lasers themselves, and that a 60-second cooldown between pulses is sufficient ; woooh, that sounds realistic, doesn’t it ?) — you’d “just” need to invent your magic laser printer first.

    —-

    The scientists’ main point of course was not “this is how the Shroud was produced” ; but instead, “to create such an artefact is technically impossible”.

  13. iprimap says:

    One other thing – for the record I think that the Shroud of Turin is a real miracle of the imprint of Christ on his burial cloth. But I have worked in nuclear power for 40+ years, and I know physics and mathematics (except when I can’t add 2 and 2 because my brain cells are in flux – ha! ha!). I have learned to avoid applying scientific explanations to things that don’t need it because invariably those explanations involve far more fiction than science. Exposing the Shroud of Turin to the energy equivalent to 541.75 Hiroshima bombs (assuming all that power was exposed in one second) is science fiction. Sadly, too few people will exercise the patience necessary to follow my argument above. It’s much easier believing in science fiction. I prefer the simple: “It’s a miracle from God.”

  14. un-ionized says:

    iprimap speaks as one with authority and not as one of the scribes.

  15. Michael_Thoma says:

    Not to go completely non-believing on anyone here, but its probably more likely that the marble slab or some rocks underneath have trace elements of radiating materials. Even countertop granite and natural floor tiles are susceptible to this.

  16. un-ionized says:

    iprimap, isn’t the basic definition of “miracle,” “something that violates physical laws?” No need to quibble about “violate” or “physical” or “law” here. Miracle cures are those which violate known medical science, the miracle of the sun at Fatima violated all kinds of things. I used to be a member of one of the mainstream Protestant communities and they are always trying to “prove” that something “really happened” through science, as if science can somehow legitimize faith. That is a defining feature of the mainstream Protestants and has been for many many decades.

    I think the effort to show how the shroud of Turin was produced is a wild goose chase. A miracle will leave no sign of “how it was done.” If you can see “how it was done” then it wasn’t a miracle, someone could reproduce it mechanically.

  17. Nan says:

    iprimap, while the universe must adhere to the laws of physics, God is free to do as He chooses. I too believe that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus; as un-ionized says, not matter what kind of testing is done, they won’t be able to replicate the means of creating the image. Similarly, I don’t expect science to have an explanation of the energy in the Tomb. Only theology has that explanation.

  18. iprimap says:

    Un-ionized,
    .
    I am inclined to agree with you in that miracles involve a suspension of physical law. I hesistate to say violation because God created the laws of physics just as He created divine law, and by definition, He is not a law breaker.
    .
    ;-)
    .
    Now we can observe the occurrence of miracles, and we do so with ears, eyes, smell, taste and touch, all of which operate by physical law, so we can describe what we observe within the confines of that law. For example, the Shroud of Turin bears discoloration to the eyes and fabric changes to the touch. Those sensations are transmitted via physical law to our minds. But how the discoloration and fabric changes occurred may not be entirely explanable within the confines of physical law. For a photographic revserse image of a crucified man to appear on a cloth 2000 years old requires a process outside of current technology, and (I think) outside the laws of physics itself (or at least the explanation implied in this blog post – 34 thousand billion watts). But there may be a physical process that could do what we see and touch. I am not prepared to say what that was. I can say that it was NOT 541.75 Hiroshima bombs. Nor was it neutrinos (weakly interacting particles). Nor was it neutrons (the residual activation of isotopes in the cloth would leave a tell-tale signature). Could it have been an intense gamma burst? Maybe (but it wasn’t 34 thousand billion watts). The gamma burst from the detonation of the Hiroshima bomb, as the explosive heat incinerated people, left shadow prints of people on buildings and sidewalks.
    .
    But all that is simply speculation, and without hardcore physical fact I resist such speculation.
    .
    So in conclusion: God may suspend physical law, but He doesn’t violate physical law, and He dang sure doesn’t violate mathematics (though He has been know to multiply, e.g., loaves and fishes!). I think the Shroud is an example of the suspension physical law overriden by a higher law.

  19. iprimap says:

    I concur with Nan’s last comment, hence my disbelief in 34 thousand billion watts as an explanation.

  20. un-ionized says:

    And you just wasted a lot of time quibbling about “violate” without supplying a better term.

  21. iprimap says:

    Un-ionize, I suggested using the term suspend vice violate. I do not have a better term. I also maintain that God formulated physical law for a dang good reason, and just as He expects and requires us to obey divine and moral law, so also does He expect and require us to obey physical law, the violation of which invariably results in unintended consquences for the violator – usually death. Indeed, does God violate moral law? No. But might He have suspended moral law, say, to allow King Solomon to have all those concubines? Possibly. Yet we would never say God sanctioned a violation.
    .
    Said another way, God may suspend applicability of physical law in some place or time, but He still allows us to observe its results, thus what violation has occurred?
    .
    Or maybe it’s just semantics…..believe me, the reactor kinetics equations are easier to deal with than theology which I really ought to leave to those more qualified than I!
    .
    ;-)

  22. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear iprimap,

    Your calculations are slightly off. 2000 MW is 2000 MegaWatts = 2 GigaWatts or 2 x 10^9 Watts. 17000cm^2 = 1.7 x 10^4 cm^2, so (2 x 10^9) x (1.7 x 10^4) = 3.4 x 10^13 Watts of power, which is 34 TeraWatts of power. There article says that a VUV (visible-ultraviolet) laser of this power would produce the coloration seen on the shroud.

    Now, Watts is a unit of heat flow = Joules/sec. So, Watts x sec = Joules. If the, “process,” ran for 1 second, 3.4 x 10^13 Joules of heat would flow through the material. Assuming that the energy were applied uniformly across the Shroud surface(so no heat diffusion problems), than the amount of heat, q,would be 3.4 x 10^13 Joules across the Shroud, which, given that the surface area is 17000 cm^2 and assuming .5 cm thickness gives a volume of 8500 cm^3. Now, the density of linen (average, since it varies with weave, etc.) is 1.5 gram/cm^3, so the mass of the Shroud is: D x V = m, so = 8500 cm^3 x 1.5 g/cm^3 = 12,750 g = 12.750 Kg = approx. 28 lbs. Now, q = mc(t2-t1), where t = temperature, m = mass and c = specific heat (for linen, it is 1.347 Joules/gram/C), so, assuming room temperature of 20 C, if 3.4 Joules heat were applied for 1 second, the temperature, t2, would be: t2 = t1 + (q/mc) = 20C + (3.4 x 10^13 J/(12750 g x 1.347 J/g/C) = 1.98 x 10^9C or about 2 billion degrees Celsius.

    I have to meet students. More later.

    The Chicken

  23. iprimap says:

    Thank you, Masked Chicken. “….so, assuming room temperature of 20 C, if 3.4 Joules heat were applied for 1 second…”
    .
    Don’t you mean 3.4 * 10^13?
    .
    I find the final figure of 1.98 * 10^9 degrees Celsius noteworthy. Even for one second of exposure, I would think that the Shroud would have been incincerated.

  24. paladin says:

    un-ionized wrote:

    iprimap, isn’t the basic definition of “miracle,” “something that violates physical laws?”

    To Catholics, the definition of a miracle, in this context, is “that which is done by supernatural agency” (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.); secular, non-theist scientists usually don’t acknowledge the existence of miracles, so their definition (to the extent that they bother to define it exactly and reasonably) is beside the point. Since supernatural acts are acts of God, by definition (acts of Satan, for example, are “preternatural”, and not supernatural, since Satan is a creature), and since God is the very One Who legislates the laws of physics, it wouldn’t make much sense to call such Divine acts “violations” of physical laws.

    Example: in a monarchy where the king may decree whatever law he pleases, and the king decides to suspend (for example) the law against spitting in public for a single day (say, for the sake of a tobacco-chewing festival, or something), would you say that the king “violated” the law by joining in the festivities and “chewing and spitting” on that day? The law was legitimately suspended by the very person who had a legitimate right to suspend it; therefore, there’s no cause to talk to “violating” the suspended law (which will come back into effect at the end of the day, at the king’s will). This is roughly (leaving the sticky issue of an eternal God acting within time aside, for the moment) what God does, when He transcends or suspends the normal physical laws in order to work some extraordinary wonder.

    No need to quibble about “violate” or “physical” or “law” here. Miracle cures are those which violate known medical science, the miracle of the sun at Fatima violated all kinds of things.

    The choice of “violate” is your own; I’ve usually seen the definition of “medical miracle” (which is a loosely-defined term–see above) as “a cure which is INEXPLICABLE by current medical understanding and means”. If you want to use the word “violate” in that (medical) case, you’re free to do so… but in the case of God (the Law-Giver) suspending one of His Own laws, I don’t think you could.

    And you just wasted a lot of time quibbling about “violate” without supplying a better term.

    If your comment was directed at iprimap, then I don’t think that’s correct (or fair); iprimap wrote, in the comment to which you’re referring:

    “I am inclined to agree with you in that miracles involve a suspension of physical law. I hesistate to say violation because God created the laws of physics just as He created divine law, and by definition, He is not a law breaker.

    The word “suspension” is, in fact, a better term (for the example in question)… and he did, in fact, supply it.

  25. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear iprimap,

    Yes, that was a typo. Should have been 3.4 x 10^13 Joules applied to the surface. Now, there are ways in which the Shroud could have this much energy, but not be incinerated.

    More, later.

    The Chicken

  26. gracie says:

    “And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became white as light.” – Matthew 17: 1-8

    It would seem that God is His own power source, which He can reveal and control independent of the laws of physics. Note that although Christ’s face had the intensity of the sun, the apostles were neither blinded nor burnt. Perhaps the universe is but one aspect of His glory.

  27. iprimap says:

    Masked Chicken, I look forward to your explanation!
    .
    :-D
    .
    To everyone:
    .
    The following is something I have often wondered about with respect to miracles in the physical universe, and if I am waaayyyy out in right field (believe me, I am never in left field – ha! ha!), then I won’t be surprised. Maybe Masked Chicken has some thoughts?
    .
    The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to determine accurately both the momentum and position of an electron simultaneously.
    .
    Planck’s constant (denoted as h) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action, central in quantum mechanics. The Planck–Einstein relation connects the particulate photon energy E with its associated wave frequency f:
    .
    E=hf
    .
    This energy is extremely small in terms of ordinarily perceived everyday objects, and the constant is 6.626 * 10^-34 joule-seconds.
    .
    As I have been informed, this is the value to which the uncertainty principle may be reduced:
    .
     http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html
    .
    Nevertheless, great big infinite God Almighty only needs a tiny little wedge to work the miracles that He does, even some as small as ten to the negative thirty fourth power. Thus, as far as I can see, God has equipped Himself with all the opening in physics that He needs to do what He wills without violating physical law (though He may suspend it via for example the Uncertainty Principle).

  28. MrTipsNZ says:

    iprimap and TheMC™ seem pretty onto it with ye olde Mathymatik.

    But, biologically speaking if one may, heat can be transferred in slightly different ways and discordantly. Regardless, a billion degrees is pretty hot – incineration probability = 1.

    But, gracie hits the nail on the head methinks: the Transfiguration is precisely what came to my mind as well. And especially as WE, God and graces willing, will also undergo a perfection to our bodies after death, as evidenced by visions of the Saints and the testimony of Scripture. Our souls and bodies will be in perfect harmony according to the will of God the Father and that union delivers a kind of energy which has only even been noted on the Shroud and the Transfiguration.
    The Shroud is a Miracle imo, and its signature derives from an energy – the structure and nature of which – our physik and mathy boffins yet not fully know (it lurks in an equation and its underlying assumptions somewhere). One day they will – and it shall be ineffable.

  29. iprimap says:

    Mr. TipsNZ’s comment is interesting. Nevertheless, even biology is subject to mathematics right from its basis in DNA and RNA (e.g., DNA sequencing theory).
    .
    While biology is not my field of expertise, a simple search of the internet resulted in finding many books on this topic written by highly erudite scientists whose works I would have great difficulty in understanding.
    .
    I really think that maybe physicist Michio Kaku is onto to something when he postulated that maybe mathematics is the language of God – or at least the language by which God holds the physical universe together (including physics, chemistry and biology).
    .
    Some time ago I read Dr Francis S Collins’ book, “The Language of God.” This book dealt a lot with the human genome project on which the good doctor worked. From that book on a subject outside my chosen profession (nuclear energy) I became convinced that God is (in a sense) quite mathematical, or at the very least, quite logical. I guess He being the Logos would have to be.
    .
    :-)

  30. The Masked Chicken says:

    Below the Planck length, distance has no meaning, so we can’t discuss the topic in material terms. However, since deltaE x deltaT < h, if the time interval is below the Planck time, then any amount of energy may be applied.

    There are a couple of ways this much energy may be applied without incinerating the linen: 1) time dilation (relativity), 2) dispersal of the energy through the other eleven string theory dimensions, 3) spatial tunneling using quantum mechanics, etc.

    The Chicken

  31. gracie says:

    iprimap,

    “Nevertheless, even biology is subject to mathematics right from its basis in DNA and RNA (e.g. DNA sequencing theory).

    I think you may have fallen into the trap we all fall into at times – of thinking of Jesus as a human person. Our Lord is a Divine Person with a human nature. His human nature is subject to the DNA and RNA – to put it in terms we can understand – of His Divine Person. While living on earth Jesus permitted Himself to be limited by the laws of our biological nature (although he removed that limitation when He performed miracles). That self-imposed limitation ended with His death. On Easter Sunday the Divine Person of Christ – using the DNA/RNA of God – reunites His human nature to His divine nature. Remember Holy Saturday – Our Lord visits the dead in Hell (Hades, if you prefer) while His body lies in the tomb. Obviously, if Christ was a human person He wouldn’t have been able to pull that off.

  32. iprimap says:

    Thank you, Masked Chicken. I have to think more about what you wrote.
    .
    Time dilation requires either relativistic velocity or a very large gravitational source (e.g., proximity to the event horizon of a black hole). I think this is non-credible. The shroud wasn’t moving near light speed (it was stationary), and there was no black hole
    in the vicinity (otherwise its gravity would have wrecked the entire solar system).
    .
    Eleven string dimensions is just a theory – dispersal of energy via that mechanism is possible, but I still don’t think physicists are close enough to TOE (Theory of Everything) to bank on eleven string dieinsional theory. But the possibility is fascinating.
    .
    Spatial tunnelling of the energy through quantum mechanics is I think the most likely scenario. We have tunnelling all the time on the micro level in electronics and neutron physics, but not on the scale of 34 thousand billion watts. Nevertheless, I can’t discount it.
    .
    “…if the time interval is below the Planck time, then any amount of energy may be applied.”
    .
    I think that makes the point, right? Or do I misunderstand?
    .
    Thanks again. Good response. :-)

  33. iprimap says:

    Gracie,
    .
    I am not a theologian. I will not speculate on the nature of the Incarnation because any such speculation of mine would likely be heresy, however unintentional. All I am saying is that our human DNA and RNA are based on and described by mathematical law that God created. How Jesus manages to be both divine and human is beyond my understanding in this life (and certainly beyond my pitiful prowess at mathematics! ha! ha!), and if I get Heaven on the death of my physical body, then I will be so overjoyed that I won’t care at that point.
    .
    ;-)

  34. OldLady says:

    How did Mary imprint her image on the tilma? How did the sun dance? How does a Host turn into heart Muscle? Scientific proof always thrills but how awesome that Heaven never stops reaching out to pull us directly into the Mystery of Heaven. There was a time when a burning bush would amaze us. Times change. God never does.

  35. iprimap says:

    Gracie, I concur that all those things you isted are miracles outside of standard scientific explanation. We have no difference of opinion there. But some things (even most things) are scientifically explanable. Their explanation (DNA and RNA in biology, chlorophyl and photosynthesis, nuclear physics, electronic theory, astrophysics and cosmology, etc.) does nothing but increase my awe of the greatness of God the Creator. He is logical. He is mathematical. And He always makes sense even when I can’t understand it (which is far too often).

  36. iprimap says:

    Opps, I meant to address my response to “OldLady” – sorry!

  37. mike cliffson says:

    somewhat agree with imiprip
    otherwise
    trolling stones reveals overblown gauss

  38. DeGaulle says:

    Godel: ‘In all sets bar the most simple, there are statements or propositions that cannot be explained by the axioms contained within’.

    This translates to me that there are things of this world that we cannot know. Only a transcendent intelligence can explain such propositions.

  39. Worm-120 says:

    I don’t believe God ignores science, I’m sure the shroud has a logical and scientific explanation, only comprehensible to the mind of God. There are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don’t know), and unknown unknowns (things we don’t know we don’t know). It’s seems logical that everything God does is scientifically explainable, but is beyond the grasp of human or angelic intellect.

  40. un-ionized says:

    Worm-120, you’ve come back to a psalm. Some things are too high.

  41. un-ionized says:

    The idea that one science is dependent upon another is a philosophy called reductionism.

  42. JabbaPapa says:

    iprimap :

    Time dilation requires either relativistic velocity or a very large gravitational source (e.g., proximity to the event horizon of a black hole).

    No it doesn’t — it is purely a geometric function of material speed, and it occurs even in cases where the differentials are quite minute. It is BTW explainable in a “Newtonian” or even “Euclidian” Universe with no absolute requirement of reference to any “Einsteinian” theory as such — Einstein’s outstanding merit on this particular point is of course to have been the first to understand and describe the dilation “effect”.

    Otherwise, regardless of my faults in the practice of the mathematical Art, “2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts” still refers to total energy requirement, and NOT to a single energy pulse.

    You might handily compare that total with the total amount of solar energy arriving onto a similarly sized area facing the Sun in constant polar orbit perpendicular to our star over a 24-hour period.

  43. JabbaPapa says:

    un-ionized :

    The idea that one science is dependent upon another is a philosophy called reductionism.

    Yep.

  44. JabbaPapa says:

    Worm-120 :

    I don’t believe God ignores science

    ewww — sorry, and particularly because your heart is certainly in the right place, i.e. in Love and Faith in God and Church, but your post is still full of inadvertent philosophical howlers.

    Science is our flawed and intrinsically imperfect, incomplete, and improvable human understanding of material reality — God is neither subjected to this imperfection, but nor is He “absent” from His Gift to us of the ability to seek improved understandings of the material.

    , I’m sure the shroud has a logical and scientific explanation, only comprehensible to the mind of God. There are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don’t know), and unknown unknowns (things we don’t know we don’t know). It’s seems logical that everything God does is scientifically explainable, but is beyond the grasp of human or angelic intellect.

    I’m sure the shroud has a logical and scientific explanation, only comprehensible to the mind of God

    If it is comprehensible only to the Mind of God, then by very definition it occurs outside of Science (which is human knowledge), Logic (which is human intellective methodology), comprehension (which we cannot honestly claim in relation to God Himself), and the radical impotence of materialist explanation in principle and in consequence (so that genuine explanation as such can therefore belong to God Alone — and by His Grace, so it does, in the Holy Revelation and in the Incarnate Logos in the Son and in His Eucharist).

  45. robtbrown says:

    The definition of a miracle is an effect produced without the efficient cause. This is possible because God is the First Cause–he doesn’t need to work through intermediate causes.

    For the purposes here, it is good to note two types of miracles: Quoad modum and Quoad substantiam.

    Quoad modum refers to an effect that can be caused naturally but must be caused with certain means. For example, it is possible that a house and its entire contents be moved to a different location 20 miles away. If it would happen in an hour, however, the move could not be explained by natural causes. A similar example is the almost instantaneous shrinkage of maligant tumors.

    Quoad substantiam refers to an effect that cannot be caused naturally. For example, bi-location is impossible according to the laws of nature. It is said, however, that Padre Pio at times bilocated. Another example is the case of Gemma di Giorgi, a young girl born without pupils. After a visit to Padre Pio she was able to see even though the physical state of her eyes did not change.

    If it is actually Christ’s Burial Shroud, I would say the image was not produced by the Resurrection itself but rather by the qualities of the Resurrected Body: A physical body becomes a spiritual body–still a body but not subject to certain physical laws.

  46. iprimap says:

    First, I believe that Jesus Christ “…descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead…”
    .
    Further, I also think that God becoming incarnate in human flesh is beyond what we can understand in this life. Nevertheless……………….Robtbrown wrote:
    .
    “A physical body becomes a spiritual body–still a body but not subject to certain physical laws.”
    .
    I would amend that by saying that physical laws – that is to say, the laws of physics – may change:
    .
    (1) Across the 13.73 billion year time span of the universe
    (2) Across the 46.5 billion light year distance of the observable universe
    (3) Between one universe and another within the multiverse (if there is such a thing)
    .
    Physical constants like Planck’s Constant, the velocity of light in a vacuum, electron mass, Avogardo’s number, etc., are all fined tuned in our universe for the appearance of sentient life on our planet. But have these constants changed over the temporal distance of the universe? Or over the spatial distance of the universe?
    .
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/10/are-the-laws-of-physics-really-universal/
    .
    Or might one universe in the multiverse have different physical constants and perhaps even a stable physics different than that of our universe?
    .
    http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html
    .
    Any of these things could account for “a body but not subject to certain physical laws” that we know based on the physical constants of our universe.
    .
    We could go further. “Magical” irrational numbers like Euler’s number (2.71828) and pi (3.1416) may be different in a different universe, implying an entirely different geometry and physics. But we in this universe may be incapable of understanding the mathematics and physics of such alternate realities. That doesn’t mean that they do not exist or are not logical and mathematical. It simply means that we do not understand. And indeed we may never understand in this life how the image of Christ came to be imprinted on the Shroud of Turin.
    .
    So I reject the notion that God isn’t logical simply because He is always and forever beyond the complete understanding of the science that man understands. No, He isn’t material (except insofar as the Incarnation is concerned). But He is logical. After all, He is the Logos.
    .
    PS, I find it an endless source of fascination that those who deride science, logic and comprehension are often the first ones to describe the heights of spiritual ecstasy to which religious music elevates them. Music itself is intrinsically and inherently mathematical:
    .
    http://www.ams.org/samplings/math-and-music

  47. Semper Gumby says:

    Great post- way too cool. Fascinating discussion. And, reflecting back on Fr. Amorth’s books and the book on Fr. Gary Thomas, these altered instruments are yet another indicator that the days are numbered for things that go bump in the night.

    p.s. I keep track of several reputable archaeology and anthropology news sites. Their articles are well-written and updated almost daily. In the last month since the events at Jesus’ tomb they’ve posted about 70 articles. Just a few topics: DNA studies to determine human migration across the Pacific; a ritual pet cemetery discovered in the Nile Delta; new tombs discovered up the Nile at Abydos. Here’s one about a priest-hole: “The Stratford-upon-Avon Herald reports a research team led by Chris King, Lukasz Bonenbergand, and Sean Ince of the University of Nottingham has used new scanning technology to produce a 3-D map of a priest hole hidden at Coughton Court, a Tudor country house in Warwickshire.”

    However, among those 70 or so articles only one (it was well-written and lengthy), covered the Edicule story, and there was no mention of the altered instruments. Apparently the editors decided it wasn’t newsworthy…

  48. The Masked Chicken says:

    Some comments:

    “You might handily compare that total with the total amount of solar energy arriving onto a similarly sized area facing the Sun in constant polar orbit perpendicular to our star over a 24-hour period.”

    The average solar illumination is 1120 Watts/m^2 or, assuming perfect transmission, or .1120 Watts/cm^2. The surface area of the shroud is 17000 cm^2, so the top surface, in direct sunlight, would receive 1904 Watts of direct sunlight – about the same as with a spotlight. To calculate the total flux density, I would have to assume an exponential fall-off of radiation as the light penetrated to the back of the Shroud (decreased to about 1/3 for this type of fabric) and integrate the function Ie^-ah between 0 and .5 (thickness), where I is the solar irradiance, a is the constant of radiation decay per cm of cloth, and h is the thickness, which I am too lazy to do, but the answer is, probably no more than 10 times the surface exposure, so, 19,040 Watts, total.

    “So I reject the notion that God isn’t logical simply because He is always and forever beyond the complete understanding of the science that man understands. No, He isn’t material (except insofar as the Incarnation is concerned). But He is logical. After all, He is the Logos.”

    God is not logical. He is the logic. If God were merely logical, He would be bound by the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC), but that would only be possible if the LNC pre-existed God. God binds Himself to the LNC, freely, in dealing with creation, but there are no opposites in God, Himself, so the LNC has no linguistic meaning within the Divine Simplicity, itself. There are no contradictions within God.

    “Music itself is intrinsically and inherently mathematical:”

    Well, speaking as an expert in the relationship between mathematics and music, I would have to severely qualify that statement. Humans have a natural preference for certain types of organized rhythms and pitches, but this can be somewhat altered by nurture and this doesn’t even get to the semantic structure of music, where certain language-like similarities occur (the music processing region of the brain is right behind the language region), nor, for that matter, whether or not music only exists for man – what about extraterrestrials or artificial intelligence? I can create a form of humor that is funny only for AI. There is a connection between math and music because of language. If the language phenomenon is different, so will be the music.

    Angels have instant apprehension, so, angelic music does not unfold in time the same way it would for humans. The music a saint hears in the Heavenly Choir is not the same type as he heard when he was in the flesh.

    Mathematics has a lot of power, but there are music’s subject to Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem that can nor be expressed within a mathematical system.

    Of course, the scientists in Italy overlook the fact that God can create ex nihilo, so He could just cause the imprint to appear without using any energy, at all.

    The Chicken

  49. The Masked Chicken says:

    Forgot to mention, 19,040 Watts over a 24 hour period is 456,960 Watts of sunlight or a measly 457 kWh, which is about what it takes to heat and light a typical church for Sunday Masses.

    The Chicken

  50. The Masked Chicken says:

    I made that last point up. I have no idea how much power it takes to heat and light a church on Sundays, since it depends on many factors. I suppose some church might use this much, since a typical space heater running 12 hours a day during winter uses 360 kWh in a month.

    kWh = kilowatt hours

    The Chicken

  51. iprimap says:

    Good response again, Masked Chicken. Very good.
    .
    I use something similar to your calculations on sunlight to debunk in my conversations with eco-wacko greenie weenies all the hype about useless, worthless green solar energy vs uranium or thorium that can produce energy 24 / 7 regardless of cloud cover, snow and rainfall, and nighttime, but that is a different subject for a different day.
    .
    I sit corrected yet again. You are 100% right but I would have said it differently: “It is not that God is logical but that He is Logic. It is not that God is subject to the Law of Non-Contradiction. He is Non-Contradiction.” Saying that God isn’t logical seems to imply that He is illogical (i.e., irrational) and of course that isn’t true. And saying that He isn’t bound to the Law of Non-Contradiction seems to imply that He could contradict Himself, but He can’t because He is as you stated ultimately simple (and coherent). But maybe it’s just semantics at this point. The bottom line is that you are correct and mine is mere quibbling.
    .
    As for music, I will defer to the link at the AMS web site which I posted and your expertise. I know nothing about the “science” of music. It just seems to me that if there is music (i.e., singing) in Heaven as Scripture describes, then there is mathematics in Heaven.
    .
    As for the extraterrestrials whom you referenced, I certainly hope they continue to avoid this planet. They don’t need the crazy problems which we have created for ourselves. And likely they are not infected with our original sin. But that also is a conversation for a different day.
    .
    As for Artificial Intelligence, I think that’s a pipe dream (or nightmare, depending on the motives of such AI). Software in silicon may mimic to some extent human behavior, but there is no soul and we cannot create such a soul which is necessary for true sentience. I would think that only God can do that. However, man could create a sufficiently complex computing machine with fuzzy logic and electronic pathways mimicking neuronal pathways that could be demonically possessed. In that case, what we have is not AI but demonic intelligence. Again, a conversation for a different day.

  52. iprimap says:

    “I made that last point up. ”
    .
    But the underlying point is valid.
    .
    I wonder how many realize the difference between power (watts, kilowatts and megawatts), and energy (watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, megawatt-hours). It isn’t the power that causes the changes per se. It’s the energy that is deposited, and energy is force through a distance whereas power is energy consumed (or generated) per unit time.

  53. JabbaPapa says:

    The Masked Chicken :

    The average solar illumination

    I did say “energy” rather than “light”, but thanks —

    God is not logical. He is the logic. If God were merely logical, He would be bound by the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC), but that would only be possible if the LNC pre-existed God.

    Quite.

  54. robtbrown says:

    iprimap says:

    3 December 2016 at 9:46 AM

    First, I believe that Jesus Christ “…descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead…”
    .
    Further, I also think that God becoming incarnate in human flesh is beyond what we can understand in this life. Nevertheless……………….Robtbrown wrote:
    (Referring to 1 Cor 15:41–, including; It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.)

    “A physical body becomes a spiritual body–still a body but not subject to certain physical laws.”
    .
    I would amend that by saying that physical laws – that is to say, the laws of physics – may change:

    It is not a matter of laws of physics changing. There are four qualities to the Risen Body of Christ found in Scripture. They will also be found among those resurrected from the dead:

    Impassibility–nothing affects the body
    Agility–the body can be moved from one place to another instantly
    Subtlety–the body can penetrate walls, etc.
    Clarity–extreme brightness

    A spiritual body will be perfectly subject to the soul.

  55. robtbrown says:

    MC says,

    God is not logical. He is the logic. If God were merely logical, He would be bound by the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC), but that would only be possible if the LNC pre-existed God. God binds Himself to the LNC, freely, in dealing with creation, but there are no opposites in God, Himself, so the LNC has no linguistic meaning within the Divine Simplicity, itself. There are no contradictions within God.

    Not bound by the LNC? Are you saying that God can be ungodly?

    God is bound by His own Essence, which, as you say, is Simple. He cannot contradict His own essence. The LNC applies to Him, as it does all reality.

  56. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    Western music theory is based on mathematics frequency ratios. Octave–2:1; major fifth–3:2 etc.

    Rhythm is of course self-explanatory.

    Also: Previously, harmony was two or more notes played at the same time that were in a certain proportion. Now harmony is simply two or more notes played at the same time.

  57. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    It would take a book to go into the history of Western music theory (no such book exists, although I took a year-long graduate seminar from an expert, who should have written one).

    Western music is a pretty broad category to be reducing it to the Ptolemaic ratios. How does one use these ratios to describe microtonal music or 12-tone music? Rhythmic theory did not really develop until the 1300’s and we have no idea what the Greeks or even the early Church used for rhythm other than the beating of the pulse for time-keeping.

    So, yes, traditionally, Western music might have started with interval ratios and modes (although there might be a pre-history to that), but the rise of technology, especially keyboard and wind instruments forced radical changes to Equal Temperament and even Just Intonation and the Greek intervals became much more complicated in the late Renaissance (much more).

    Even harmony was unknown until early Organum about late 1000.

    Yes, math and music go way back, but the evolution of music has been brought about both by technology and the realization that just as early Greek astronomy, as inventive as it was, eventually failed to capture the reality of the cosmos, so early Greek music, as mathematically-oriented as it was, eventually failed to capture the reality of the human experience of music as a cross between language and geometry.

    The Chicken

  58. The Masked Chicken says:

    I had a much longer reply that got lost when my phone logged me out. A simple accidental flick of the wrist and, poof, all gone :( To be fair, I was a little abrasive in that version.

    The Chicken

  59. JabbaPapa says:

    robtbrown :

    God is bound by His own Essence

    No — Essence is Material by definition, and what God has is Existence rather than Essence. And this is not just nitpicking — to propose that God is bound by His Existence is an absurd proposal.

    He cannot contradict His own essence

    Insofar as God has an Essence, as He did and does in the Son, it does not “contradict” the Trinity because God transcends such material Nature. God is both immanent and transcendental, and these Qualities do not “contradict” each other in His Divinity.

    The LNC applies to Him, as it does all reality.

    This is a howler — you are claiming that the Laws of Reality that have been Created by God impose restrictions upon God.

    De facto, you are implicitly positing (most likely not deliberately) that God exists within reality, thereby reducing Him to just another Being in the Universe — you are denying both His transcendental Existence and the subjection of the Law to His Omnipotent Sovereignty.

    The Law of Non-contradiction is an artefact of human logic, and a tool that we use for purposes of systematic abstract thought (and BTW we ourselves sometimes need to ignore and contradict it) — it is in other words a creature within reality, and God is subjected to no creature.

  60. JabbaPapa says:

    The Masked Chicken :

    It would take a book to go into the history of Western music theory

    The French may have one.

    I think robtbrown is confusing a certain theory about music with music itself, in a similar way that many confuse grammar with grammar theory.

  61. Justalurkingfool says:

    I had no intention of posting again but, since I have no way of crossing the Chicken’s path, I will:

    Hey, masked one!

    Do you like Doo Wop? Did you like Buddy Holly, (with and without the Chrickets)?

    Did you like the 1960’s Ray Repp stuff and some of the music that came from Word of Life, in Ann Arbor, if you are familiar with their Songs of Praise series?(I think that was what it was called)

    I know it is off topic but, unless you give me a method to contact you, this is the only place that I have ever crossed your path. So, I have to bother both you and Father Z, here. Sorry.

    Karl

  62. Nan says:

    Bottom line? The energy present in Christ’s tomb is the uncreated energy of God.

  63. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    The 12 tone scale of Arthur Schoenberg is as Western as Wittgenstein’s Nominalism is Western.

  64. un-ionized says:

    Nan is right as usual. How much of this discussion has been dueling egos?

  65. robtbrown says:

    JabbaPapa,

    Almost everything you wrote is wrong.

    1. Yes, God has an Essence. Everything that exists has an Essence, including Angels. God’s Essence is the same as His existence, and so He is referred to by Thomists as ipsum esse. This differs from creatures, including Angels, whose Existence is distinguished from their Essence. Thus the importance of the Real Distinction.

    Re the relation of the Divine Essence to the Trinity: I follow St Thomas and St Augustine, both of whom always speak of the Trinity within the Divine Oneness. There is, therefore, one act of being in God and one act of willing–even when speaking of the Trinity.

    2. Essence includes matter for material things. Thus, we say that the human essence is composite. Even though the human soul is incorruptible and survives the death of the body, nevertheless, it is the form of the body. In fact, St Thomas says that the human soul is both the substantial form of the body and a substance in itself (this was a part of my doctoral dissertation.

    3. Howler, etc. The Law of Non Contradiction is a corollary of the Principle of Identity (Whatever is, it cannot not be at the same time). Thus, when MC correctly notes that God is Simple, the Law of Non Contradiction follows.

    4. You seem to think that laws of grammar are artificial. In fact, they distinguish, e.g., the agent and patient; the time of the action; the means by which the action is effected, whether the action is contingent, the quality and quantity of the action, etc.

    5. Your comments indicate that you deny analog, which contradicts Romans 1:20. See also; Vatican I, Dei Filius ch II.

  66. robtbrown says:

    should be analogy not analog.

  67. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    When I speak of Western music, I am referring to music that is intended to be beautiful, and beauty includes a certain integrity. I find it hard to imagine that Schoenberg’s music was intended to be beautiful.

    For example, I am a fan of jazz, but, despite hailing from KC, I have never liked be-bop. I don’t like to listen it, including the Bird. I also don’t like the theory behind it, which goes beyond enhancement of melody.

    There is also the matter of dissonance, which is found in the later Beethoven String Quartets and is of course very common now. IMHO, dissonance in music is like conflict a story. Both need resolution at the end of the work.

  68. robtbrown says:

    Justalurkingfool wrotes,

    Did you like Buddy Holly, (with and without the Chrickets)?

    Yes to Buddy Holly.

    Some years ago I drove to Iowa to visit an old football teammate. He set me up with a date, and after water skiiing, we all went dancing at a place called the Surf Ballroom.

    Years later I found out that the Surf Ballroom, in Clear Lake, was the last place Buddy Holly performed before he was killed in a plane crash.

  69. JabbaPapa says:

    robtbrown :

    Almost everything you wrote is wrong.

    That is a false statement.

    1. Yes, God has an Essence. Everything that exists has an Essence, including Angels. God’s Essence is the same as His existence, and so He is referred to by Thomists as ipsum esse. This differs from creatures, including Angels, whose Existence is distinguished from their Essence. Thus the importance of the Real Distinction.

    That is a completely false bad interpretation of St Thomas Aquinas.

    Aquinas characterised God as “Being Itself” — YOU are characterising Him as “a Being”.

    As I can see that you are not doing so by mistake, but deliberately, I must therefore denounce your position as an Error, and I must in all Charity warn you that you are straying towards a heretical doctrine contrary to the Catholicity.

    Re the relation of the Divine Essence to the Trinity: I follow St Thomas and St Augustine, both of whom always speak of the Trinity within the Divine Oneness. There is, therefore, one act of being in God and one act of willing–even when speaking of the Trinity.

    Neither Aquinas nor Augustine are the best sources of instruction into the specifically Trinitarian Theology.

    God’s Unicity does NOT either “contradict” or “condition” His Trinity.

    In fact, St Thomas says that the human soul is both the substantial form of the body and a substance in itself

    True — but you are clearly confusing substance with matter.

    3. Howler, etc. The Law of Non Contradiction is a corollary of the Principle of Identity

    That is simply to claim that God is subjected to the Principle of Identity — whereas God’s simultaneous Unicity and Trinity demonstrate objectively that this is not the case.

    It seems to me that unlike Aquinas, you are prepared to make some very daring claims about God — your claims, however, contradict the findings of a local Council of Toledo in matters of Trinitarian Doctrine and which were used as a basis of both the filioque doctrine and as a basis for Trinitarian Dogma generally.

    Your Law of Non Contradiction and your Principle of Identity both contradict that Dogma directly — when we speak of any of the Persons of God we do so individually and by means of distinction, but when we speak of God Himself in Trinity, we must abandon such individual notions and those distinctions.

    The FACT that God is simultaneously One and Three demonstrates His Absolute non-subjection to a Law of Non Contradiction or Principle of Identity.

    4. You seem to think that laws of grammar are artificial. In fact, they distinguish, e.g., the agent and patient; the time of the action; the means by which the action is effected, whether the action is contingent, the quality and quantity of the action, etc.

    As stated, some people confuse grammar and grammar theory — clearly you are one of them.

    Specific rules belonging to particular normative or descriptive grammars of particular languages do NOT define grammar theory.

    Similarly, philosophical theory does NOT define God.

    5. Your comments indicate that you deny analog, which contradicts Romans 1:20. See also; Vatican I, Dei Filius ch II.

    This is a patently ridiculous comment.

    Are you confusing some thoughts in your head with the Revelation ?

  70. iprimap says:

    I cannot compete in intellectual stature to some of the commenters here. Indeed, the continuing discussion is fascinating. However, it seems to me that the universe shows God’s invisible attributes, namely His power and divinity (Roomans 1:19-20).
    .
    What do we see in the universe? That it obeys fixed laws. That its processes are described mathematically. That it is logical, beautiful, vast and mostly incomprehensible to small little man. Why are those NOT God’s attributes if Creation reflects the Divine? Such attributes don’t limit God (that’s a contradiction in terms – nothing can limit the Limitless), but they help describe Him.
    .
    As for God being a part of Reality, you betcha He is. Indeed He is Reality itself – the great “I am that I am.” The mistake often made, however, is that Reality is limited to material physical Law, whether those laws are of our own universe, or of another universe (where constants like pi, Euler’s number, electron mass, and light speed may all be different) in the great multiverse. Reality isn’t so limited.
    .
    Maybe I am all “full of it” for I am neither philosopher nor theologian. “God is great. God is good. I am not God. And I need His help.” A mentor in a 12 step proogram told me that 30 years ago. It’s that simple and it works (if you work it – ha! ha!). ;-)
    .
    PS, the more I learn about science, the more it confirms my Catholic belief. The confirmation is unnecessary for my Faith, but it certainly is good to see.

  71. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Nan is right as usual. How much of this discussion has been dueling egos?”

    Oh, Pshaw… where else are we going to talk about these things? This isn’t dueling egos. The Law of Non-contradiction is essential to understanding humor and my research for the last six or seven years has been to adapt this into a usable theory of incongruity, which is at the heart of humor. robtbrown is a Thomist, so consider this a little metaphysical digression.

    As for music, well, the question is not whether or not music is based on mathematics, but whether or not it is based on the Greek ratios. Of course, it no longer is because equal temperament involves irrational quantities, whereas the Greek ratios are strictly using rational numbers.

    The Chicken

  72. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    Agree. Arguing can be fun, and it doesn’t need to be personal.

    Years ago having dressed after a football game at prep school a very good friend and I argued over who had played worse. I said I did, he insisted that he was much worse. We settled it by putting on the pads, going out into the grass, and going one on one. After each collision we would both turn over on our backs and laugh. It was great fun.

    BTW, I spoke with him for the first time since 1967 at the Army Navy game. He went to West Point for a couple of years, then left and finished at Auburn. A construction engineer, he is a serious Catholic and was a factor in my conversion.

  73. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    As for the LNC, yours is a meta-statement about God. In order for the LNC to exist, there must be an A and not-A that exist at the same time on the same discourse level. Since God is simple, there is no not-A on the same discourse level. St. Paul says Christ is not yes and no, only yes. There is no contradiction because nonexistence does not, well, exist.

    This is called the Eberhard phenomenon in counterfactual logic. If X had happened, Y would happen, but X could not happen, so what is the status of Y?

    The LNC comes into play when God’s existence is referenced against other possible existences, which is a second-order consideration or meta-statement, as I said.

    The Chicken

  74. JabbaPapa says:

    iprimap :

    As for God being a part of Reality, you betcha He is. Indeed He is Reality itself – the great “I am that I am.”

    Reality is not “part of” Reality. :-)

    Other than that —

    The mistake often made, however, is that Reality is limited to material physical Law, whether those laws are of our own universe, or of another universe (where constants like pi, Euler’s number, electron mass, and light speed may all be different) in the great multiverse. Reality isn’t so limited.

    Setting aside multiverse theory as, well, unnecessary, your point about the “mistake often made, … that Reality is limited to material physical Law” is spot on, metaphysically.

  75. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Justalurkingfool,

    I would love to find another way for people to send me e-mail. I refuse to use gmail because I might as well be posting on the NSA website and most other methods cost money.

    Must go. Phone call.

  76. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Justalurkinfool,

    Doo Wop and Buddy Holly is okay and innovative.

    I am intimately familiar with the Songs of Praise book and know a little about Ray Repp (whose lifestyle is scandalous, sorry to say, as far as I know of it). The music is folk music with Catholic-like words. There are separate judgments to be made regarding the songs as music and the songs as appropriate theology reflected in music. As someone knowledgeable about Charismatic history, I am somewhat familiar with the milieu from whence these songs came and in my opinion, Steve Clarks’s justification for them is a serious misreading of the documents on Ecumenism and Musicam Sacram from Vatican II.

    In Musicam Sacram, nos. 60 and 61, we read:

    “60. The new melodies for the vernacular texts certainly need to undergo a period of experimentation in order that they may attain a sufficient maturity and perfection. However, anything done in churches, even if only for experimental purposes, which is unbecoming to the holiness of the place, the dignity of the liturgy and the devotion of the faithful, must be avoided.

    61. Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas,[42] will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working.”

    In 1967, when the Ann Arbor group started, the Church in the U. S. was, technically, still listed as missionary territory, so no. 61 comes into effect. Repp was not an expert, so could not judge from any experience the sacred characteristics of the folk music he was composing. This is a direct violation of no. 61 of Musicam Sacram. Likewise, since the work was written for interdenominational use, the theology did not relate to a specific Catholic character, so was not appropriate for Mass use.

    That certain bishops shielded this music is, in itself, scandalous.

    The music as music is fine and can be very uplifting, but it does not satisfy the requirements of Vatican II, in my opinion. Music is the one area where liturhical, “experts,” did not screw things up, but, rather this is on the laity and certain bishops.

    Sorry, if this doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement. I used to really like the emotional quality of the music, but the more I studied Charismatic history and theology, the less I saw the Catholicity in it.

    As we have wandered from the Shroud of Turin, I will leave these issues to a different post.

    The Chicken

  77. iprimap says:

    Yes, JabbaPapa. God being Reality itself is not a part of (i.e., a subset of) Reality. Logic failure on my part.

  78. laud1645 says:

    One thing’s for sure, God doesn’t use metrick

  79. Justalurkingfool says:

    Dear Masked Chicken,

    Thank you for the response and the lesson in liturgical music. Thank you, Father Z, for printing my post. I was once, many moons ago, part of a Charismatic Catholic Covenant Community, that used some of the Word Of Life music, not in liturgy, but in prayer meetings. I heard of just a bit of Ray Repp’s “idiosyncrasies” many years after playing his stuff in the late 60’s. Honestly, my experience in the Charismatic renewal was quite positive and actually influenced me, significantly, towards a more traditional Catholicism. It was a contributing influence to my understanding of the indissolubility of marriage, as well as and, fundamentally, important to my honoring our wedding vows.

    Hopefully our paths will cross, even if only reading your comments from time to time. They are often very interesting. Take care.

    Justalurkingfool

  80. Nan says:

    un-ionized, thank you for your kind words!

    Chicken, someone recently asked why I’m not on Facebook. I responded that the NSA already knows everything I’m doing, Zuckererg doesn’t need to know too. Mail.com is owned by a German firm and has many domains so you’d not be sharing with NSA but presumably Germany’s equivalent.

  81. Justalurkingfool says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    The Surf Ballroom is just a short drive from the crash site where
    J.P. Richardson, Richie Valens, Buddy Holly and the young pilot,
    Roger Peterson died.

    I visited both in the late 80’s with a couple of our children,
    including our daughter, Holly, named after Buddy and born on
    the 22nd anniversary of Buddy and Maria’s wedding anniversary.

    Someday, God willing, I would like to visit his burial site in Lubbock,
    Texas with her and I wish, with her mother should the wounds of our
    divorce ever be healed. When Holly was baptized, Father Angella
    spoke her name as “Holy”. After all she has been through she remains
    a blessing beyond my understanding, now as a wife and mother of
    three.

    My favorite by Buddy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCtBOz-dzfo

    My homemade tribute to my daughter Holly:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71h_hzUwMSY

    Justalurkingfool

  82. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    As I said the LNC is a corollary of the Principle of Identity, and God’s Essence is Simple.

    The problem arises in the consideration of whether according to the Divine Omnipotence God is able to annihilate the rationali soul–or perhaps make 2+2=5. There is a strain in Medieval Franciscan theology that because creatures are by definition contingent, everything predictated about their essences, including universals, is also contingent. That it would be a contradiction of the Divine Nature (i.e., Omnipotence) if God could not do it. So we can see that the LNC must somehow be involved in this matter.

    St Thomas acknowledges that just according to the Divine Omnipotence it could be said taht God could, say, annihilate the rational soul. But he adds that His Omnipotence must also be considered in light of His Providence, by which the Divine Intellect establishes human finality is established (omne agens agit propter finem) : To annihilate a rational soul contradicts the Divine Providence.

    One problem, however, remains–that of contingency. If universals are not subject to contingencies, how can a universal be said to be immutable when contingent beings are mutable. He answers by noting that God obligates himself in the essences of contingent beings–a kind of necessity.

    Also:

    Apart from the relation of Greek proportions, e.g, golden ratio, and Fibunacci’s progression to music, it seems to me that what dominates not only post modern music but most other arts, is the portrayal of human anxiety, man (to steal Walker Percy’s title) Lost in the Cosmos.

  83. robtbrown says:

    MC,

    Should be Fibonacci

    ***********

    JabbaPapa,

    In the text above I specifically referred to God as Ipsum Esse. I also mentioned the importance of analogy and the Real Distinction. So when God is referred to as Being, the word is predicated analogically of God and Creatures. Thus the importance of Analogia Entis.

    BTW, lest you think that referring to God as Being is heresy or approaches it, such an approach is commonly found in those (e.g., Scotus and Suarez) who deny the Real Distinction, instead distinguishing Infinite Being of God and Finite Being of Creatures. I have little use for the thought of Duns Scotus, but he is considered Blessed.

    In the first centuries of the Church, especially with the rise of Arianism, there was much written on the what the Divinity of Christ actually meant. Men like Pope Leo the Great and Hilary of Poitiers and certain homilies by St Augustine made great contributions. The Western Trinitarian theology was established by St Augustine in De Trinitate, in which Hilary was the only name mentioned. . Centuries later, St Thomas produced the definitive treatise.

    I never said that the Divine Unity contradicted the Trinity. In fact, I said that opposite–that in St Augustine and St Thomas the Triune God is always considered within the One God. And according to St Thomas there is one act of knowing and willing in God. In fact, that is the basis for St Thomas’ Trinitarian theology.

  84. Semper Gumby says:

    The world is charged with the grandeur of God. -Gerald Manley Hopkins

  85. robtbrown says:

    Jabbapapa says,

    As stated, some people confuse grammar and grammar theory — clearly you are one of them.

    That is contradicted by my comments above that listed real distinctions that produces grammatical distinctions.

    True — but you are clearly confusing substance with matter.

    So why did refer to the essence of angels, who have no matter. Further, I note that according to St Thomas, the human soul is a substance in itself.

    This will be my last comment directed at you. It is fairly obvious that you really don’t understand these things and are trying to bluff your way through them.

  86. JabbaPapa says:

    robtbrown :

    lest you think that referring to God as Being

    It is in fact your attempt to subject God to Natural Law and to artefacts of human logic that was disagreed with.

    I have little use for the thought of Duns Scotus

    What a “surprise”.

    The Western Trinitarian theology was established by St Augustine in De Trinitate, in which Hilary was the only name mentioned. . Centuries later, St Thomas produced the definitive treatise.

    These are important contributions, but you exaggerate their primacy — the true source of the proper theology is in the Revelation and in the Holy Magisterium, not the theological opinions of even Doctors of the Church.

    I never said that the Divine Unity contradicted the Trinity.

    You seem to have misunderstood every single one of my objections to your positions — either that, or you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

    It is fairly obvious that you really don’t understand these things and are trying to bluff your way through them.

    /roll-eyes/

    You demonstrate a manner of flawed Thomism that is common among those who have studied him and yet have failed to understand the rules and methods of Mediaeval Rhetoric.

    Any Thomist having derived a coherent and systematic notion of Aquinas’ theology from studies has simply created such a system himself, for it is not to be found in the source material.

    Aquinas lacked the arrogance that you are displaying, in your pretensions that you are right to such an extent that you can simply ignore any disagreements with you.

    That is contradicted by my comments above that listed real distinctions that produces grammatical distinctions

    I am unable to provide you with proper demonstration of your errors in this regard, because a talk shop combox isn’t appropriate for a lecture.

    You are in fact confusing grammar and grammar theory.

    More fundamentally though, you are clearly mistaking your own methodological and logical biases for reality ; hence your false claim that music is based on mathematics, and your false claim the God is subservient to logic. The deeper error is that you clearly believe all that exists to be subservient to your own worldview, in which a certain conception of logicalism seems to reign supreme.

    Ontology however is not subjected to logic. It therefore follows that nor is God.

  87. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear robtbtown,

    In theory, the LNC can be established through the Law of Identify, but only by referencing the LOI and that makes it a meta-level. On the first-order level, you can’t activate the LNC unless A and not-A can contingently exist at the same level. You propose (or St. Thomas does) that God subjected himself to this proceedure, but to refer to oneself is, by definition, a meta-level statement, so St. Thomas may be correct, but his description is incomplete. Did the Scholastics know about meta-levels? They were just starting to work out modal logic, if I recall. In other words, the reality is Divine simplicity, but the description of that simplicity admits the LNC. I don’t mean to go all Wittgensteinian.

    The Chicken