Is Resurrection of Jesus Real?

Cold-Case Christianity - J. Warner & Jimmy Wallace

3 Oct 202411:48

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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:02

🧮 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.

10:03

⚖️ 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

Evidence refers to anything that can be used to establish facts or support claims, whether physical or non-physical. The video emphasizes that both forensic (physical) and non-forensic (non-physical) evidence are crucial in building a case, including criminal trials and the case for the resurrection in Christianity. Examples from the script include the location of a crime or what a suspect says or fails to say.

💡Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence is physical evidence that can be scientifically tested to help solve a crime. This includes things like fingerprints, DNA, or objects found at a crime scene. In the video, it is contrasted with non-forensic evidence, showing that both are important in making a case. It is often used to prove physical facts but isn't the only form of valuable evidence.

💡Non-Forensic Evidence

Non-forensic evidence refers to evidence that isn't based on physical or scientific testing, such as witness testimonies, statements, or behaviors. In the video, the speaker highlights that non-forensic evidence is just as important in solving cases as forensic evidence, such as what a suspect says or what they choose not to say.

💡Resurrection

Resurrection in this context refers to the claim in Christian belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The speaker draws parallels between how one would investigate the resurrection and how one would investigate a crime, using both physical and non-physical evidence to support an extraordinary claim.

💡Extraordinary Claims

Extraordinary claims are assertions that seem unusual or unlikely and often require substantial proof. In the video, the speaker addresses the idea that extraordinary claims, such as the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus, do not necessarily require extraordinary evidence but can be supported using ordinary evidence effectively.

💡Extraordinary Evidence

Extraordinary evidence is the concept that rare or unlikely events require unusually strong evidence to be believed. The speaker argues against this notion, stating that ordinary evidence is often sufficient to prove extraordinary events, as shown through the example of solving complex murder cases using standard forms of evidence.

💡Internal Textual Evidence

Internal textual evidence refers to evidence found within the text of scripture, such as the Bible, that can be used to support religious claims like the resurrection. The video mentions that both internal (scriptural) and external (non-textual) evidence can be used to make a case for Christianity.

💡External Non-Textual Evidence

External non-textual evidence refers to evidence outside of the written scripture that can support claims in Christianity. In the video, the speaker suggests that just like in a crime investigation, what is not said or omitted can be as valuable as what is documented. This applies to external evidence for religious claims as well.

💡Naturalism

Naturalism is the belief that everything can be explained through natural causes like space, time, matter, physics, and chemistry, without involving supernatural forces. The speaker identifies as a former philosophical naturalist and contrasts this worldview with the belief in the supernatural claims of Christianity, such as the existence of God.

💡Burden of Proof

Burden of proof is the obligation to provide evidence to support a claim. The speaker argues that extraordinary claims made by both Christians and naturalists must meet the same standards of evidence, challenging the idea that claims about God require more evidence than naturalistic explanations for phenomena like the origin of the universe.

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.