Is Resurrection of Jesus Real?
Summary
TLDRThe speaker emphasizes the broad nature of evidence, both forensic and non-forensic, in criminal investigations and applies these principles to religious inquiries, such as the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of God. They argue that both what is present and absent in evidence can be crucial. The speaker also challenges the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, explaining that ordinary evidence can suffice for extraordinary cases, including in legal contexts and theological debates. They conclude by critiquing philosophical naturalism and discussing the implications of scientific explanations for the universe and life.
Takeaways
- 🔍 Broaden the definition of evidence when investigating any case, including the resurrection or the gospels.
- 🕵️♂️ Both physical and non-physical evidence can be valuable in a criminal investigation.
- 🗺️ The location of where an event occurred, and where it could have occurred but didn’t, can both hold evidential value.
- 🧩 Missing items from a crime scene can be just as valuable as items that are found at the scene.
- 👂 What a suspect says and what they fail to say are both crucial pieces of evidence.
- ❌ Actions not taken by a suspect can be as important as the actions they do take.
- 🧐 When examining the resurrection or Christianity, both textual evidence from scripture and external non-textual evidence are essential.
- 📚 Absences in the gospel narrative, like what the author left out, can be as evidentially important as what is included.
- ⚖️ Extraordinary claims, like the existence of God, don't require extraordinary evidence but can be supported by ordinary evidence, just as extraordinary crimes are solved with standard forms of evidence.
- 🌌 The belief in naturalism, that all things can be explained by space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry, also requires strong evidence, and these claims might be even more extraordinary than those for God or Christianity.
Q & A
What is the main argument the speaker makes about evidence in the investigation of the resurrection and gospels?
-The speaker argues that we need to broaden our understanding of evidence, as both physical and non-physical evidence can be valuable in investigations. This broad approach is applicable not only to criminal cases but also when investigating the resurrection and the gospels.
What types of evidence does the speaker say can be used in a criminal investigation?
-The speaker mentions that both forensic physical evidence and non-forensic evidence can be used. Additionally, things like what was said or left unsaid by a suspect, actions taken or not taken, and even the absence of certain items at the crime scene all hold evidential value.
How does the speaker apply this broad view of evidence to the case for Christianity?
-The speaker applies the same principle of broad evidence to Christianity, suggesting that both the textual evidence in scripture and external, non-textual evidence, such as events that did or did not occur, should be considered. Even what is missing or left out in the texts can be evidentially significant.
Why does the speaker reject the notion that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' in the context of Christianity?
-The speaker rejects this notion by explaining that extraordinary cases, like the murder case he worked on, can be solved using ordinary evidence. Similarly, the extraordinary claim of Christianity can be supported by ordinary types of evidence, just as in any other case.
Can the absence of something still hold evidential value in an investigation? Give an example.
-Yes, the absence of something can still hold evidential value. For example, the speaker highlights that the location where a victim was not attacked or items missing from a crime scene can provide crucial clues about what happened.
What example does the speaker use from his own work to demonstrate the importance of ordinary evidence in solving extraordinary cases?
-The speaker uses a murder case from 1981 where a woman was killed, but there was no body, no crime scene, and no cooperation from the suspect's family. Despite these challenges, the case was solved using ordinary evidence like what the suspect said or failed to say, and actions he took or did not take.
How does the speaker explain the significance of what gospel authors left out in their accounts?
-The speaker explains that what gospel authors left out of their accounts is just as important as what they included. This can help in understanding what might have influenced their writings and what was considered important or unimportant at the time.
How does the speaker connect philosophical naturalism with the idea of extraordinary claims?
-The speaker, reflecting on his time as a philosophical naturalist, argues that the belief that everything can be explained through space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry without a designer is an extraordinary claim itself. He suggests that this requires just as much extraordinary evidence as the claims of Christianity.
What does the speaker say about using 'ordinary evidence' in proving the existence of God?
-The speaker argues that proving the existence of God does not require extraordinary evidence. Instead, ordinary evidence—such as the nature of the universe, what we observe, and what is absent—can be used in a similar way to how other extraordinary cases are solved.
What is the speaker's view on the moral implications of philosophical naturalism?
-The speaker challenges the idea that moral obligations can arise from a purely naturalistic worldview. He questions how a deterministic system, like the universe governed solely by physics and chemistry, could account for immaterial aspects such as consciousness, free will, or moral obligations.
Outlines
🔍 The Broad Nature of Evidence
In this section, the speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the broad scope of evidence. They explain that both forensic (physical) and non-forensic (non-physical) evidence can be critical in solving crimes. Examples include not only what is present at a crime scene but also what is missing, and actions not taken by a suspect can be as significant as those taken. The speaker draws parallels between how evidence is used in criminal trials and how it can apply to examining biblical events, particularly the resurrection, arguing that both physical and non-physical evidence matter. The speaker encourages thinking broadly about evidence when investigating claims in Christianity, stressing that even what is not recorded or said can be crucial evidence.
🧮 The Extraordinary Nature of Crime Statistics
The speaker discusses the rarity of murders, particularly in California in 1981, providing statistical evidence to illustrate how extraordinary murder cases are. They highlight that out of 24 million people, only 0.01% committed murder, making it an uncommon event. The case of Michael Luban, who committed murder without leaving behind a body, crime scene, or motive, is used to show how extraordinary some crimes can be. Despite being a rare case, the speaker argues that extraordinary claims, like this murder, can still be solved using ordinary evidence, dismissing the idea that extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence.
⚖️ Solving Extraordinary Crimes with Ordinary Evidence
The speaker explains how seemingly extraordinary murder cases can be solved using ordinary types of evidence. Referring back to the Luban case, they point out that things like the location of the crime, what was said or not said, and actions taken or not taken are all valuable clues. They challenge the popular notion that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, arguing that ordinary forms of evidence used in criminal trials can also apply to proving significant claims, including the existence of God and Christianity. By using consistent, everyday forms of evidence, even extraordinary claims can be proven.
🌌 The Extraordinary Claim of Naturalism
The speaker contrasts their previous belief as a philosophical naturalist, which held that everything can be explained by natural laws like space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry. They challenge the naturalist view that extraordinary phenomena such as the fine-tuning of the universe, the emergence of life from non-living matter, and consciousness can be explained purely through natural processes. The speaker argues that these claims are far more extraordinary than those made by Christianity. They shift the burden of proof onto those who claim that the universe and life can be fully explained by naturalism, suggesting that such claims also require extraordinary evidence.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Evidence
💡Forensic Evidence
💡Non-Forensic Evidence
💡Resurrection
💡Extraordinary Claims
💡Extraordinary Evidence
💡Internal Textual Evidence
💡External Non-Textual Evidence
💡Naturalism
💡Burden of Proof
Highlights
The importance of considering both forensic and non-forensic evidence in investigations, as non-physical aspects can also provide valuable information.
Not only what was discovered at the crime scene, but also what was missing can be significant evidence.
Analyzing not just what the suspect said, but also what they failed to say, can reveal crucial insights.
Evidence in a case should be viewed broadly, considering all possible factors, including the absence of actions or words.
The same principle of broad evidence applies when investigating the resurrection or other gospel events.
The idea that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is often misunderstood; ordinary evidence can still solve extraordinary cases.
The example of the 1981 murder case, where no body, crime scene, or physical evidence existed, yet the case was solved using standard investigative methods.
Most murders are statistically rare, and certain cases can be even more extraordinary due to a lack of typical elements like a motive or evidence.
The importance of using ordinary evidence to solve cases, regardless of how extraordinary the crime may seem.
The case for the existence of God or the resurrection can be made using ordinary, not extraordinary, evidence, similar to how a criminal case is built.
Examining what the gospel authors said and what they left out can be valuable in building a case for Christianity.
The sister of the victim in the 1981 murder case demanded extraordinary evidence due to her disbelief, yet ordinary evidence was sufficient to prove the case.
In a trial, every piece of evidence, even seemingly ordinary or unremarkable, has potential evidential value.
The philosophical naturalist perspective assumes all phenomena can be explained through space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry, rejecting anything extranatural.
The argument that claims about the universe's origin and fine-tuning without a designer are also extraordinary and require substantial evidence.
Transcripts
second practices I second thing I do
when working in cases that I think we
could apply to how we investigate the
resurrection or anything actually in the
gospels and that is we have to think
about the nature of evidence broadly we
have to think about the nature of
evidence broadly in other words we're
asking this question what qualifies as
evidence now you might say well you know
physical forensic physical evidence of
the scene that's true you know it's
evidence I can I can test that's
physical it's true but but also
non-physical evidence at the crime scene
is also non-forensic evidence is is some
some of the evence can't be tested with
forensics some of it can some of it with
forensic Sciences um but some of it's
not even going to be physical so it
turns out that both sides both kinds of
things could qualify as evidence both
kinds of things could be used in a
criminal trial to make a case both
forensic physical evidence and
non-forensic phys hey how about this
where the victim was attacked you
realize that that where the victim was
attacked is an important piece of
evidence it can determine really who
we're looking for is the is it could it
be anybody or was it somebody who knew
her often we know that b based on the
location but guess what where the victim
could have been attacked but
wasn't that's also of evidential value
to us in a case do you see now again the
two opposites are both valuable to us
here's another one items discovered at
the crime
scene of course stuff you discovered the
crime scene that's going to be that
could be used as evidence how about this
stuff that is missing from the crime
scene well that also has evidential
value do you see the pattern here how
about this where the suspect
said well that would count how about
words the suspect could have said but
didn't uh yeah that also counts how
about this something the suspect
did well yeah of course that would count
how about this something the suspect
could have did done but decided not to
do or for whatever reason didn't do well
yep that would also do you do you see
what's happening here so it turns out
that the with categories the the the
scope of what could be used evidentially
to make a case is much broader than you
think everything and anything has the
potential to be used to build an
evidential case in criminal trials this
is true same is true though we're making
a case for Christianity well we have
some internal textual evidence from
scripture well of course we could use
that to make a case but we could also
use external non-textual evidence well
how about this uh where did the event
occur as recorded in scripture that's
going to be important to us but where
the event could have occurred but didn't
that's also going to be well how about
this the stuff that was described right
by the author whatever the gospel author
is of course that's got evidential
importance but the stuff he left out
that's also of evidential importance to
us how about this uh he describes that
certain words were said by one person in
the in the account either Jesus or
somebody else well the words that that
person said that's going to count but it
turns out the words they failed to say
will also be important to our
investigation whatever they did is
important whatever they failed to do
that do you see what's happening here
the same it turns out you used to think
well what's on that page that's what's
going to well what's not on the page
also
counts and we have to kind of look at
this differently I often am more
concerned about what I always say it
this way to my daughters be careful what
you say because I'm going to hold
everything against you and and they hate
that of course but the point is it's
broader than you think and I want us to
keep that open broad funnel of evidence
in mind as we begin to examine the case
for the resurrection a lot more counts
than you think counts everything has the
potential to be part of an evidential
case now before we uh go to the next uh
principle I just want to answer an
objection I hear a
lot that I describes me nuts so here so
here's the objection it's something like
this you'll hear this said in the past
you know extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence I can't tell you
how many times I've heard
that and it's often used in the context
of this second expl uh second objection
you know if God exists this idea this
quote this claim God exists that's an
extraordinary
claim you had better be able to produce
extraordinary evidence to support such a
claim well what do you what do you mean
by extraordinary I mean what what what
exactly my own experience with this is
slightly different let me explain to you
what I mean I had a case which I
described in the last session in which a
woman was killed by her husband in 1981
and there was no body this is a case
that appeared on Dat line and as I
investigated this case as you can see
here I realized that man this event the
murder of this man uh this this man
murdering his wife was in many ways like
lots of murders incredibly extraordinary
let me give you an example of this it
turns out 1981 there were about 24
million people living in our
state of those 24 million people about
3,000 just a little over 3,000 were
murdered or committed murder I should
say that's 0 one% of the entire
population of California that's pretty
extraordinary that's a very small number
this is not a common thing or an
ordinary occurrence this is an
extraordinary occurrence if you think
about it right and it turns out of all
these people who committed murder 0 one%
of the population of California who
committed murder one of them just one
was a guy named Michael
luban he was
0.004% of the
population that's an extraordinarily
small and rare this dude was special
right and or an an exceptional if you
think about it um not just ordinary this
is not an ordinary event this is by the
way most murders well all murders are
given the the number of people who live
in our our country and the people who
commit crimes in our country they are
extraordinary events but this is even
more extraordinary event because as I
told you in the last session we didn't
work this as a homicide for six years
after it was reported as a missing
person we had a missing person report
nothing else six years later someone
decides well she never came back that
doesn't happen I mean give me you tell
me that she never came back she left two
small children she never once called she
never she never this is a murder
investigation we're like working on as a
murder now but now we're 6 years behind
the curve so in addition to this being
very rare in terms of the number of
people who are living in California this
is even rarer in terms of murders
because we had no physical evidence and
we had no body and as you can see here
we had no crime scene and we had no
one's cooperation that's right he's not
going to cooperate with us his family
doesn't think he's guilty worse yet
Carol his wife their family loved Mike
they didn't believe Mike was capable of
doing this they didn't want to lose both
their daughter and their beloved
son-in-law they wouldn't they weren't
Cooperative either so we have a case now
that's rare to begin with but now it's
even more rare because it's in a unique
case this guy had no History of Violence
most murderers we can go back and find
at some point they had a history of
violence not here and guess what on top
of it all this is a case in which there
was no apparent motive for Mike to do
this to his wife now that's okay this is
a terrible case this is why this stayed
open for so many years this is an
extraordinary unusual case given that
any murderer in California believe it or
not as you might think not think it's so
but it is so you just saw the numbers
it's extraordinary on its own but not
only that this case is even more
extraord based on the nature of the case
and this is why the sister of the
deceased the sister of the victim
basically said no you I don't believe it
I don't believe Mike did
this basically you're going to have to
show me some extraordinary in order for
me to believe
that there's no way now okay we get to
trial here he is in
trial and I will tell you that um
everything has
evidential um use right we talked
earlier about how to think broadly about
evidence the same was true here during
his criminal trial so we're looking at
you know where was Carol killed where
wasn't Carol killed what did Michael say
afterwards what what did he fail to say
when interviewed afterwards what did
Michael do what did he fail to do do you
see what we're doing here the same thing
I showed you in the last segment we are
using very ordinary
evidence very unexceptional evidence
it's the same way we approach everything
in order to make this case so it turns
out we can solve extraordinary murders
using very ordinary evidence you don't
need extraordinary evidence we don't
need some crazy uh test that's been
devised in the last last five years and
now we're going to bring it in with you
know and make it a hologram no we're not
going to do any of that we're going to
use very ordinary evidence stuff I just
told you about the stuff we use in every
case now let's take a look at this and
apply this to say for example the
existence of God now what's going to be
used to make a case for the existence of
God do I need extraordinary evidence to
to prove this extraordinary unusual
claim not really I'm going to use all
the kinds of ordinary evidence I would
use forensic evidence non-forensic
evidence where the phenomena occurs
where phenomenas don't occur um what is
discovered in the universe what do we
see about the nature of the universe
what's missing from the nature of the
universe what do the gospel authors when
it comes to Christianity in specific
what do they say what do they fail to
say what did Jesus do what did Jesus not
do in other words we're going to make
the case for this extraordinary claim
called Christianity using very ordinary
unexceptional forms of evidence because
this is how we prove every extraordinary
case using the same approach we use to
doing anything
else now this is one last thing here
looking at the universe okay if we're
going to
suggest uh I believed this for years as
an atheist I rejected anything
extranatural if it couldn't be explained
with space time matter physics and
chemistry I believe we would eventually
just be patient we will eventually
explain it with those things that's all
you had it's only explanations that
could ever exist were those that
employed space time time matter physics
and chemistry I was a philosophical
naturalist but if we're going to suggest
that the the the universe leapt into
existence from nothing and appears
fine-tuned without a fine-tuner and life
emerges from nonliving this this this
these forces of physics and chemistry
can create life from non-living matter
that appears to be design when there's
no designer and that there Consciousness
somehow emerges immaterial Consciousness
somehow emerges from matter from
material and there's somehow the
appearance or the emersion of the
emergence of of freedom of free agency
just pops in here even though the system
itself is deterministic and somehow
there are moral obligations to physics I
mean and there's no you we're only
morally obligated to persons but if
we're going to suggest all of this comes
from just SpaceTime matter and physics
well that really would be an
extraordinary claim and seems to me then
the burden goes right back to the other
person to have as much extraordinary
evidence cuz those claims are even far
more extraordinary than ours
[Music]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)