Is there HARD EVIDENCE for Christianity?

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[dannyslag]

I wonder if a criminal wrote a letter saying "im not guilty 500 people saw." If hed accept that.

[MinionofNobody]

J. Warner Wallace is a retired cop with a bachelor’s degree in design and a master’s degree in architecture. I am a retired cop and a retired attorney with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts and a Juris Doctor.

What do Wallace and I have in common? Neither of us has the qualifications to be considered experts in the field in which Wallace is active.

[bensrandomshows]

I find it really funny how the entire basis, although not explicitly stated, of Jim's ministry is that the American legal system is the best way to determine truth

[benjamintrevino]

I require the same level of evidence that a Christian would require in order to be persuaded that Islam is true

[shassett]

Imagine you're in court hearing witness testimony, but the witness didn't see the crime. The witness is just there to tell you that they read about someone else who claimed to see the crime many decades ago. Also, the report they read was full of completely implausible claims like the accused walking through walls and shooting lasers from their eyes.

[mjjoe]

If he applied the same standards to his previous work, it would have been a serious miscarriage of justice.

[thestud]

"Have you met Jesus?" "No.. but I know a guy... that knows a guy.. that heard that he existed..."

[TerenceClark]

Wait, an apologist playing word games instead of actually addressing a question? No way!

[MasterSpade]

If they had ANY "Hard Evidence" they wouldn't need what their religion is based on = Blind Faith.

[petercollins]

In fact, judges DO NOT instruct jurors that both forms of evidence have the exact same weight. Not ever. That would be grounds for mistrial. Judges instruct jurors that, as the triers of fact, THEY WILL DETERMNE what weight to give to any piece of evidence, direct or indirect.

Jay WaWa didn't spend much time in court, so his claims about what happens there should be taken with a pound of salt, at least.

[KZSoze]

The problem is he uses the cop and courtroom angle to try and gain trust. Then, he lies and purposely misuses the same terminology in an attempt to trick people. If a DA or judge asked him, as an officer, for “hard evidence”, he wouldn’t pretend there’s no such thing. The same way he wouldn’t try and pass off “witnesses” the same way he does in the Bible. He’d be thrown out of the courtroom and fired.

[a-borgia]

I call it obfuscation. Typical apologist approach.

[drlegendre]

Playing games with the language, the final recourse of scoundrels.

[graphicmaths]

I'm not too familiar with police procedures. If there was a body in the morgue that had obviously been dead for three days, and they came back later and found that the body was missing, would the police generally assume that the corpse had come back to life?

[SabracadabrO]

Inspector Clouseau has dropped his accent…

[tcamp]

With over 100 criminal jury trials as both a prosecutor and defense attorney, I always find Wallace's analysis amusing. I'd love to remind him that in court, cops are witnesses and the lawyers are the ones who actually prove the cases. He overstates his presence in court dramatically, and most are oblivious.

Paul, your grasp on court proceedings is impressive for a non-lawyer.

[DariusRoland]

My most common adjective for evidence is 'verifiable, ' other adjectives I use: physical, material, scientific, testable, convincing, plausible. I don't limit myself to these, but they are the most common ones.

[ziploc]

Wishy-washy word games from Wallace, what a shock.
He pretends we're in a court of law when we're just having a conversation. Everybody knows what we mean by hard evidence: the murder weapon, footprints, DNA traces under the fingernails.
He's turning into Jordy Peterson, unable to hold a normal conversation about his beliefs, because he needs to obfuscate.

[morbontg]

I just want to say that regardless of the term we use to describe the evidence, there is evidence for Christianity. I can see that people in the world claim to belong to a religion that falls under the broader category of Christianity. I can see places of worship to faiths that fall under that category. I know people who would identify with a religion in that category. Therefore Christianity exists. Whether it is anything more than a set of religions that people put their faith in is definitely in question.

[mythosboy]

"...The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court..."

You get some exceptions: "excited utterance", "statements against interest" and "matter of record", and so forth. As noted, the testimony in Paul's letters (assuming veracity issues aren't present) is about as close as you get, and given that the obvious veracity issues, and Paul's admitted absence to all the gospel proceedings, Wallace 's case had best hope for some species of friendly kangaroo court to get anywhere. Which, of course, is exactly what he is after.