And, after they are Christians, they cannot understand why unbelievers are not persuaded by that same evidence. For them the case is closed. And so we Christians resonate with statements concerning the evidence for the resurrection like this one from an English lawyer, Sir Edward Clark. As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling.
Inference follows on evidence, and a truth witness is always artless and disdains effect.
Some of them even expressed surprise at how strong the case for the resurrection was and how weak Flew s arguments against it. Now, don t mistake me. I believe that Sir Edward was exactly correct and Habermas won the debate on the strength of the evidence itself. That evidence is so persuasive that men and women are accountable for not believing that Jesus rose from the dead. But the fact is, unbelievers will not believe because they see the risen Christ.