RE: Evidence: The Gathering
August 19, 2015 at 10:48 pm
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2015 at 10:52 pm by Randy Carson.)
In my OP, I listed evidence for the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, the resurrection and so forth. I'd like to add the following to the lists:
Additionally, I'd like to provide an important explanation regarding the nature of evidence itself because I think there is much misunderstanding about what is and is not valid evidence for the claims of Christianity. As a starting point for this discussion, I'm going to quote from a an expert on the subject -- cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist who became a Christian as a result of his study of the evidence that many in this forum reject.
Wallace explains:
“Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.” This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something rerlatd to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.” The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step outside of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.
“Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.
“Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitle to any greater weight than the other.”
“Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence. Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations; they must be evaluated before they can be trusted. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make inference from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a non-believer before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity.” (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 54-55, 66-67)
+++
In light of this overview of the value and validity of circumstantial evidence, it would be helpful for skeptics to look again at the evidence listed in the OP to determine whether it consistently points to the conclusions of Christianity.
- Near Death Experiences
- The Five Minimal Facts
Additionally, I'd like to provide an important explanation regarding the nature of evidence itself because I think there is much misunderstanding about what is and is not valid evidence for the claims of Christianity. As a starting point for this discussion, I'm going to quote from a an expert on the subject -- cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist who became a Christian as a result of his study of the evidence that many in this forum reject.
Wallace explains:
“Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.” This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something rerlatd to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.” The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step outside of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.
“Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.
“Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitle to any greater weight than the other.”
“Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence. Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations; they must be evaluated before they can be trusted. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make inference from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a non-believer before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity.” (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 54-55, 66-67)
+++
In light of this overview of the value and validity of circumstantial evidence, it would be helpful for skeptics to look again at the evidence listed in the OP to determine whether it consistently points to the conclusions of Christianity.
