Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Jenny A]

Are you being willfully obtuse?  There are two different sorts of evidence:

1. Witness says I saw Randy's wife shoot 13 people. 

2. We have her gun which was found on her, 13 corpses with bullet wounds from that gun, her finger prints on the gun, and burn marks on her fingers.

Type one is eye witness testimony, and I wouldn't blame you a bit for not believing it without some type two evidence.  Type two is the physical evidence.  Present some of that along with the eye witnesses and things are looking bad for your wife.

My reports of a three hour tour would be type one evidence, so is Paul's experience, and that on the disipiles presuming of course they really had such an experience.  If I came back from heaven with a new and impossible to create chemical, or better yet could set up shop as a tour guide, then we have some type 2 evidence, and things are looking rosy for heaven.  But heaven would not be proof of everything in the Bible, just of heaven.  Similarly physical evidence linking your wife to one crime is not proof she committed all the others.

Which brings me back to that eternal life type resurrection.  You don't even have type one evidence of the eternal Jesus.

So, just to be clear: would you have any choice but to convict my wife if you saw that evidence against her?

In U.S. courts and other courts from the British tradition, the jury really has two options and they aren't guilty and not guilty. They are guilty and not proven. Legally, juries don't find people innocent, at best they find that the government has failed to prove them guilty.

On the strength of eyewitness testimony alone, with no corroborating physical evidence, I'd find "not proven." Your knowledge of your wife and the fact that the prosecution hadn't been able to find any physical evidence would add to my comfort in that verdict. But, add the physical evidence I listed, and it's guilty, guilty, guilty no matter what you think you know about your wife.