P. 1
18262496 the Resurrection Trial

18262496 the Resurrection Trial

|Views: 8|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Sara Mabasa Bergström on Jun 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






JUDGE: Good afternoon everyone, is the Defense ready to


MR MISNER: Yes Your Honor. Mr. Farclough, I’d like to

discuss Hume’s argument with you a little further if I may?

A: Of course!

Q: Isn’t it safe to say that Hume’s argument has come under

scrutiny because of the fact that the argument assumes an

outcome by the way the question is posed?

A: I’m afraid I don’t follow you there.

Q: What I’m asking Sir, is that if Hume’s argument is

presumptive in nature, how can there ever be a fair chance

of equal outcome if the universal human experience is the

end all of any question?

A: I don’t believe that Hume was assuming that the human

experience was the end all. I think he assumed that there

would be revisions due to our evolving nature.

Q: But isn’t it true that no amount of abnormal,

supernatural or unique evidence of an event could ever be

sufficiently proven because the human experience was the


A: From a strict interpretation, I suppose one could arrive

at that conclusion, however, there are certain immutable

laws of nature that have been proven to be

uncompromising. For a man to lie dead for three days and

then return to life as if nothing ever happened to him,

certain laws of nature would have to be compromised. That

is where Hume’s argument lies.

Q: So in order to agree with the Humean argument one

must cast aside even the most minuscule possibility of a

sovereign God who set the laws of nature in place and

therefore, can operate outside of them.

A: I suppose that would be a fair assumption. It really

comes down to semantics. Christians have faith to back

their claims and science has empirical evidence.

Q: So by assuming that the resurrection is an impossibility

from the genesis of thought, you must come to the logical

conclusion that the resurrection is unbelievable in any case,

is that correct?

A: Yes, I believe that the resurrection would be an

impossibility unless I saw it with my own eyes and even

then, I would have to do some research to determine if my

conclusions were logical.

Q: So you can’t necessarily believe your own eyes?

A: No, because there are still logical alternatives to what I

may or may not have seen. In other words, my eyes could

be fooling me.

Q: So Sir, if you are under the presumption that there is not

even the least inherent probability that miracles occur, isn’t

that a statement of faith in itself?

A: No I don’t believe so because I have empirical science

on my side.

Q: And Sir, what is the definition of empirical?

A: Something that can be proven by observation and


Q: So according to Humean thought, there could be nothing

proved beyond human understanding that could not be

observed or reproduced in an experiment.

A: Correct.

Q: So let me ask Sir, Hume lived in the 18th

century before

such things as jets, helicopters, personal computers or any

of the modern advancements that we enjoy. Wouldn’t these

objects have been logically inconceivable and thus out of

the realm of possibility because they would have been

considered a machine of miracle dimensions?

A: Well, in that day yes, but as I said before, humanity’s

perception of reality is ever evolving. Things are proven

and disproved on a regular basis due to the empirical nature

of science.

Q: So would it be fair to say that you have faith in the

empirilogical nature of science?

A: I wouldn’t term it faith. I would term it as extreme


Q: Now we’re certainly playing a game of semantics aren’t

we? Let me ask you Sir, if, just for the sake of argument,

there were a sovereign God as the first cause of the

universe who enacted and created the laws of nature.

Would he conceivably be able to operate outside of those

created boundaries?

A: Yes, but you’re assuming that I would acquiesce to your

assertion that there is such a god.

Q: So you would say that if I were to profess that I believed

that there was enough empirical evidence to point to such a

creator that it would still require faith on my part?

A: Yes I would.

Q: Why is that Sir?

A: Because the miracles attributed to your god have never

been recreated.

Q: So following your logic, if were to take a time machine

back to Hume’s time and show him this laptop computer

that I have here, he would doubt it’s existence because it

would have never been empirically tested?

A: Yes, it would be fair to assume that line of reasoning

because they would have never seen such a thing before.

Q: So if I got back in my time machine and immediately

returned to present day, Hume would have to concede that

his mind was playing a trick on him because that argument

would be more plausible than what he thought he saw with

his own eyes?

A: Maybe not to Hume himself but to those around him

who didn’t witness it would have to arrive at that


Q: Then why, Sir, do you perceive that it is impossible for

the resurrection to have happened just as reported. In the

scenario I just described, Hume would have been the only

one to have seen the laptop in his lifetime yet we now know

that his perception would have been correct. There was far

more than one person who witnessed the crucifixion, death,

burial and resurrection of Jesus yet you steadfastly refuse to

accept even the most minuscule possibility that it actually

happened because of your absolute disbelief in God.

Doesn’t that require faith on your part?

A: Again, I contend that it requires extreme confidence in

my position, not faith.

Q: Wouldn’t you say that a devout Christian is equally as

confident in their belief in God as you are in your disbelief?

A: There are some undeniable fanatics out there, yes.

Q: So you would consider yourself as an undeniable fanatic

on the side of science?

A: I didn’t say that.

MR MISNER: You didn’t have to Sir, I have no further

questions for this witness your Honor.

JUDGE: Very well, does the Plaintiff wish to redirect?

MR KULACH: No Your Honor.

JUDGE: Very well. Sir, you may step down. Does the

Plaintiff wish to call the next witness?

MR KULACH: No Your Honor, the Plaintiff rests.

JUDGE: Alright, I think we could all benefit from a break

so if the defense has no objection, we’ll adjourn until

tomorrow morning at 8:00 am when the Defense can begin

his presentation.

MR MISNER: The Defense has no objection Your Honor.

JUDGE: Very well, Court is adjourned until 8:00 am

tomorrow morning.



You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->