Evidence: The Gathering

[Jenny A]

---

I think you need to look up the difference between direct and circumstantial (otherwise know as indirect evidence).  Direct evidence is merely evidence that does not require further information or inferences to be probative.  Indirect evidence does.  Eyewitness testimony can be either.  I say I saw you come out of a hotel, that's direct evidence that you did, and indirect evidence that you either had a room there or were visiting someone who did.  

I'm not certain why you feel the need to differential between circumstantial and direct evidence because some direct evidence is less probative than indirect evidence and vis-versa.

If a drunken man says he saw a man walking two feet above the ground, it's direct evidence that a man was walking two feet above the ground but not very good direct evidence.   If I say that I was outside at noon and the ground was dry, but when I went out at two the ground was covered in snow, that's indirect evidence that it snowed between noon and two.  The snow itself is direct evidence that it snowed at some time.

That said, Christians don't have ANY eyewitness testimony,  unless you count Paul's statements in his letters.   The Gospels and Acts are not written in the first person and there is nothing about them that suggests that the are written by eyewitnesses.  

Finally, even as a collective all Christian evidence is laughably short of what is need to make the divinity, miracles, or resurrection of Jesus more likely than not.  Six eyewitnesses modern accounts would be insufficient.  So why bother trying to prove the unprovable?

If there were a god and he had any interest in proving his existence, he could do it.

---

Jenny-

First, you are flat dead wrong about the eyewitness accounts contained in the gospels. I have other threads which have demonstrated the evidence, and your constant harping to the contrary doesn't change the fact one bit. I'm not sure why you cling so DESPERATELY to this false notion...well, actually, I have a pretty good idea. Because if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, it changes everything for you, doesn't it?

You have tons of posts in which you attempted to show that the gospels are eyewitness testimony.  They are not the least convincing.

But, even if they were eye witness testimony, it wouldn't change things much.  Eye witness testimony about miracles from an age in which people readily accepted miracles wouldn't mean much.

Second, I have looked at this a fair bit, and although I'm not an attorney, I suspect that J. Warner Wallace, a detective who has a flawless record in convicting solving cold case murders in California, has some understanding of how evidence is accepted in a court of law. I have quoted Wallace who in turn has quoted California's instructions given to jurors. Wallace WAS an atheist, but not today. Think about why.

In the meantime, I'm going with his definitions and explanations. Thanks.

I don't know what being an attorney, or a detective has to do with the definition of direct and indirect evidence as it is also philosophical and scientific concept, but I do have a number of sources legal sources for my definition:

Circumstantial evidence is:

Evidence directed to the attending circumstances; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137. When the existence of any fact is attested by witnesses, as having come under the cognizance of their senses, or is stated in documents, the genuineness and veracity of which there seems no reason to question, the evidence of that fact is said to be direct or positive. When, on the contrary, the existence of the principal fact is only inferred from one or more circumstances which have been established directly, the evidence is said to be circumstantial. And when the existence of the principal fact does not follow from the evidentiary facts as a necessary consequence of the law of nature, but is deduced from them by a process of probable reasoning, the evidence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres. 240; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial, because necessarily derived from or made up of circumstances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive, that is, it does not operate in the way of presumption, being sometimes of a higher grade, and lending to necessary conclusions, instead of probable ones. Burrill. CIRCUMSTANTIBUS, TALES DE.

http://thelawdictionary.org/circumstantial-evidence/

Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence.” In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation...0/202.html

There are two types of evidence that can be used during court proceedings: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. While one or the other type of evidence is useful, having both types of evidence will solidify the prosecution’s case.

Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.

http://www.probablecause.org/circumstant...dence.html

Notice that depending on the principle fact (i.e. the fact to be proven) the testimony can be either direct or indirect evidence.  So testimony by a witness that they found the tomb empty would be direct evidence that it was empty but only circumstantial evidence about what happened to the body.