Christians: What is your best evidence for the literal, historical resurrection of Jesus

[ITR_champion]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You were the one trying to hide behind an appeal to authority. I merely pointed out that your authority is not an authority.

In discussing Dr. Wright’s qualifications, you somehow forgot to mention that he’s held numerous academic positions in New Testament Studies, and has scholarly publications and books and debates up the wazoo and is widely respected in the field even by opponents. Instead you decided to accuse him of being anti-gay, a fact which has no relevance whatsoever to anything in this thread. When it comes to New Testament interpretation, Dr. Wright is about as authoritative as we can get. If you’re looking for someone who has no credentials in New Testament studies, check the nearest mirror.

That is, by definition, a hallucination and a psychotic experience.

Every time that you make this claim, I ask you what dictionary or other authoritative source I should check to find the definition that you’re using. Every time, you fail to answer.

I already did. The words of Paul. What else do you need?

You’re making a very strange demand here, I point out that “Paul said X,” and cite the chapter and verse, and then you ask for a cite that Paul said X.

But when you say that “Paul said X”, what you really mean is that there’s a certain passage in one of Paul’s letters which you interpret as meaning X. By contrast, I have already explained the standard scholarly interpretation of the passage as meaning something quite different and linked to an article that makes the point at length. (But to save time, here’s the article again.) I’'ve asked you already to provide a cite explaining why your oddball interpretation should win out over the standard interpretation. I am not particularly interested in seeing you repeat your interpretation over and over (and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over); I’m interested in seeing your provide a cite that meets the same standards which you constantly demand from others. Based on your responses thus far, it’s looking like you can’t do so.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, Paul says no such thing, denies that physical resurrections are possible and draws no distinction between Jesus’ appearances to the disciples and to himself.

How can this not mean a physical resurrection? “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”

Where does Paul deny that physical resurrections are possible?

[Meatros]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I think it should be obvious from I Corinthians, Chapter 15 that St. Paul believed in a physical resurrection. At the same time, his personal encounter with Jesus seems to have been a spiritual vision. Keep in mind that the Ascension was supposed to have already happened.

Okay, why do you think it should be obvious?

A spiritual vision is not a physical encounter.

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read about Joseph Smith. I am confident that he was a religious charlatan. He was not deluded. He was certainly not a prophet.

That’s great. I’m currently reading Roadside Picnic. While it’s good that we exchange reading lists, I suppose, I don’t see the relevance to the discussion.

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have read the Bible from cover to cover in seven English translations. I do believe that St. Paul was sincere. He was telling what he believed to be the truth. That does not necessarily mean that it was the truth.

I’ve read the bible cover to cover as well - not as often, however. I disagree with you. Is your argument that you’ve read the bible more, therefore your position is infallible?

@New_Deal_Democrat

It is clear to me that soon after Jesus died on the cross the belief spread that he had risen from the dead. I can think of three possibilities. First, after dying, his body came back to life, as the gospels claim. Second, he appeared to those who loved him as a sentient ghost.

That is not clear to me. Why is it clear to you?

@New_Deal_Democrat

The third is that many who loved him imagined that they saw him, the way that many Elvis Presley fans imagine that they have seen him since his funeral. A number of years ago I read a poll that indicated that eleven percent of the American people believed that Elvis Presley was still alive, and that five percent claimed to have seen him since his funeral. Four percent claimed to have seen him before his funeral.

That’s fine, but I do not see how any of those support the contention that Paul was referring to a physical Christ.

@New_Deal_Democrat

Many, perhaps most Jews during the first century AD expected a Messiah to come, but they expected the Messiah to lead a successful revolt against Rome, and perhaps conquer the Roman Empire. Many, perhaps most followers of Jesus expected him to be the war leader who would restore David’s Empire. For them the Crucifixion would have been shocking, and inexplicable. Many of these people would have been predisposed to see Jesus in crowds, and so on.

People often talk about the ancient jews as though they were a homologous group - that they all had the same beliefs. This is not the case. There were many different factions with many various beliefs about the messiah and what to expect.

It seems to me that after a hundred years there were two dominant beliefs about Christ - the Gnostic one and the one that eventually won out. I can easily see a situation where the Gnostic version morphed from an early belief in a spiritual resurrection. Such a view was held by Jews prior to Christ (ie, a non physical body, if that makes sense).

Further, there were dozens of messiahs and several of them (IIRC) attempted to take on the temple and the authorities. They failed. So a new sect that taught that the temple was no longer necessary - that salvation was within - could have succeeded. This is the argument that Carrier presents in the Empty Tomb.

@New_Deal_Democrat

Although I am a practicing Christian, my theological beliefs are close to agnosticism, so I am able to consider various possibilities.

Fair enough.
You should read this debate: On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection

[Meatros]

I think some of Carrier’s opening statement will elucidate what the spiritual body hypothesis means, from here:

When the Apostle Paul was asked “How are the dead raised? With what sort of body do they come?” he answered “that which you sow is not the body that will come to be” but “God supplies a body as he pleases” (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). I believe Paul meant what he said: God supplies a new body at the resurrection, and that is not the body we bury. I’ve made the case for this elsewhere, and have only space to summarize here.[1] Since Paul believed Jesus was raised the same way we would be (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:13-16, 20-23, 49; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; Philippians 3:21; Romans 6:5), he must also have believed that Jesus did not rise in the body that was buried (“that which was sown”), but that God gave Jesus a new body (“the body that will come to be”). Since transferring Jesus to a new body would not require the transformation or disappearance of the old body, Paul would not need to believe there was any missing body, and there’s no definite evidence he did. So even if the body of Jesus remained in its tomb, this would prove nothing against the claim that he rose from the dead.

Several scholars have agreed with this conclusion and defend it.[2] Even noted scholar N. T. Wright, though he doesn’t agree, nevertheless admits it might be correct.[3] And we know Paul did not have to innovate to believe this, for there were many pagans and Jews who held a similar view, believing the best resurrection was one in which the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life.[4] There is thus solid and respectable precedent for my conclusion, in both ancient evidence and modern scholarship.

[ch4rl3s]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The null hypothesis is that it’s physically impossible for people to come back from the dead. …- the physical resurrection of Jesus, This is a prima facie impossible event…

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
even if Paul had claimed a physical resurrection, it would be no evidence anyway. Claims are not evidence, especially claims for impossible events, and Paul was an admitted psychotic
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Paul claimed to have experienced hallucinations of Jesus. Either he was lying, or he was, by definition, claiming to have had psychotic experiences
[/QUOTE]
(empahsis mine)

Holy-Circular-Arguments Batman!!!
Your first premise is that these things are impossible.
The evidence provided is not credible to you, because, (in part,) Paul was lying or psychotic.
But the basis for saying Paul didn’t have a conversation with Christ… that he was lying or psychotic… is your first premise, that these things are impossible.
Even if Christ appeared to you you would not believe your own evidence, because you would go to your first premise, that these things are impossible, and believe it was a hallucination.

You can not judge evidence of the supposed “impossible” with the simple dismissal, well it’s impossible, so it’s impossible.
You have made up your mind and will not entertain any evidence, and that’s not new. Just look at Luke 16, (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.)

[QUOTE=Luke 16]
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

[/QUOTE]

The actual point of this passage is often overlooked, but quite evident as it ends with this statement…

[QUOTE=Luke 16]
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[/QUOTE]

Jesus is quoted as having alluded to his death and resurrection… and here, as knowing that it wouldn’t convince people.

[Meatros]

@ch4rl3s

(empahsis mine)
empahsis mine)

Holy-Circular-Arguments Batman!!!
Your first premise is that these things are impossible.
The evidence provided is not credible to you, because, (in part,) Paul was lying or psychotic.
But the basis for saying Paul didn’t have a conversation with Christ… that he was lying or psychotic… is your first premise, that these things are impossible.
Even if Christ appeared to you you would not believe your own evidence, because you would go to your first premise, that these things are impossible, and believe it was a hallucination.

You can not judge evidence of the supposed “impossible” with the simple dismissal, well it’s impossible, so it’s impossible.
You have made up your mind and will not entertain any evidence, and that’s not new. Just look at Luke 16, (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.)

Not to burst your bubble, but DtC said it was Prima Facie impossible, which means at first sight it’s impossible. I do not think this is a controversial position to take - after all, the Christian position is that the resurrection of the dead is a miracle and not an ordinary event.

In other words, what DtC is saying is that simple anecdotes by Paul are not sufficient to over turn prima facie position.

To add to that, what Paul describes seem like hallucinations, which would count against his being of sober mind when he had those ‘experiences’.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ch4rl3s

(empahsis mine)

Holy-Circular-Arguments Batman!!!
Your first premise is that these things are impossible.

They are, prima facie, physically impossible. That’s a fact, not a premise. It doesn’t have to be proven. It is a fact at the outset.

The evidence provided is not credible to you, because, (in part,) Paul was lying or psychotic.

No evidence has yet been presented to me, but, Paul was indeed either lying or psychotic. There are no other choices.

But the basis for saying Paul didn’t have a conversation with Christ… that he was lying or psychotic… is your first premise, that these things are impossible.

They ARE impossible. That’s a tough hurdle for you to have to overcome.

Even if Christ appeared to you you would not believe your own evidence, because you would go to your first premise, that these things are impossible, and believe it was a hallucination.

If I had a hallucuination of Jesus, then yes, it would be a hallucination.

You can not judge evidence of the supposed “impossible” with the simple dismissal, well it’s impossible, so it’s impossible.

Yes I can. That’s how it works. Things which are physically impossible can safely be assumed to be impossible until proven otherwise. Dead bodies can’t come back to life. We know that for a fact. In order to make a convincing case that it happened, you have to come up with something better than a dude saying Jesus “appeared” to him.
[quite]You have made up your mind and will not entertain any evidence
[/quote]

The laws of physics are not a matter of opinion, and no one has yet offered any evidence that those laws have ever been violated.

and that’s not new. Just look at Luke 16, (the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.)
The actual point of this passage is often overlooked, but quite evident as it ends with this statement…

Jesus is quoted as having alluded to his death and resurrection… and here, as knowing that it wouldn’t convince people.

Prove those statements weren’t put in Jesus’ mouth after his death.

Incidentally, it’s pretty damn circular to co,plain that Jesus’ resurrection did not convince anybody when you have yet to show a shred of evidence that it happened. What is the EVIDENCE, son?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

How can this not mean a physical resurrection? “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”

Where does Paul deny that physical resurrections are possible?

1 Corinthians 15. I already quoted it extensively. Here it is again:

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 **it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.**
(1 Cor. 15:35-44)

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that **flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God**, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, **the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed**. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

(1. Cor, 15:50-55)

Paul says clearly and repeatedly that the soma psychika (“body physical”) will be changed into a soma pneumatikon (“body spiritual”). he says “flesh and blood” can’t get into Heaven, and that bodies will be transformed before the resurrection.

Moreover, Paul never makes any claim at all he says a word about Jesus “appearing” in a physical body. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was still in his physical body when he appeared to Paul himself?

[Ibn_Warraq]

Claiming that someone who has a hallucination is “a psychotic” makes very little sense.

Carl Sagan mentioned that according to some studies roughly one quarter of all people on Earth had a hallucination at least once in their lifetime.

In fact, all of us are quite capable of having hallucinations without being psychotic. For example go without sleep for long enough and you’ll experience them.

Paul may very well have had a hallucination, but that wouldn’t make him a psychotic.

On another note, the Holy Quran clearly states that the resurrection didn’t happen so people who claim it did are clearly wrong.

[Czarcasm]

@Ibn_Warraq

Paul may very well have had a hallucination, but that wouldn’t make him a psychotic.

Maybe not, but founding a religion on a hallucination does.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ITR_champion

In discussing Dr. Wright’s qualifications, you somehow forgot to mention that he’s held numerous academic positions in New Testament Studies, and has scholarly publications and books and debates up the wazoo and is widely respected in the field even by opponents. Instead you decided to accuse him of being anti-gay, a fact which has no relevance whatsoever to anything in this thread. When it comes to New Testament interpretation, Dr. Wright is about as authoritative as we can get. If you’re looking for someone who has no credentials in New Testament studies, check the nearest mirror.

He is not credentialed in history or relevant critical fields. His credentials are doctrinaire. He is a preacher and an apologist, not a historian

Every time that you make this claim, I ask you what dictionary or other authoritative source I should check to find the definition that you’re using. Every time, you fail to answer.

And every time, I tell you that you can use whatever dictionary you want. You won’t be able to find a definition which would not apply to Paul. Hallucinations are, by definition, psychotic.

But when you say that “Paul said X”, what you really mean is that there’s a certain passage in one of Paul’s letters which you interpret as meaning X.

I quoted it directly and the meaning is plain. It’s you and your apologist who keep trying to scrabble and obfuscate that Paul’s words don’t mean what they say.

By contrast, I have already explained the standard scholarly interpretation of the passage as meaning something quite different

You have provided no such thing. You linked to a single tendentious article by an apologist.

I’ve asked you already to provide a cite explaining why your oddball interpretation should win out over the standard interpretation.

Nice try, but what’s really going on is that you’re trying to deny the plain reading and replace it with your own highly dubious, and frankly silly spin to make it accord with the Gospels.

If you were to read Paul without any knowledge of the Gospels, you would never come away with any impression that he was talking about anything but visions.

More importantly, it doesn’t even MATTER what Paul claimed, because Paul’s claims are not evidence in any case. Anybody can claim something. Claims are not evidence.

Don’t forget that Paul says he got his info even about Jesus “appearing” to the apostles from the voices in his head, and insists that he was “not taught” this info or get it “from any man.” So if your evidence boils down to one guy saying that a dead guy told him he once “appeared” to other people after his death, then you don’t really have anything close to legitimate.

[Meatros]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

If you were to read Paul without any knowledge of the Gospels, you would never come away with any impression that he was talking about anything but visions.

This is important. If you read Paul’s letters and you interpret them to mean a physical resurrection, then why did Paul have to continually explain what he meant? Were they dense?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

More importantly, it doesn’t even MATTER what Paul claimed, because Paul’s claims are not evidence in any case. Anybody can claim something. Claims are not evidence.

Very true.

The question of this thread is what is the best evidence for a historical resurrection of Jesus.

If anecdotes from Paul constitute the best evidence, well, so much the worse for the belief I suppose.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ibn_Warraq

Claiming that someone who has a hallucination is “a psychotic” makes very little sense.

That’s the definition of a psychotic experience. Look it up. Psychosis is a break with reality. If you are seeing and hearing things that aren’t there, then you ae, by definition having a psychotic experience. All hallucinations are psychotic. It doesn’t necessarily mean the person has an underlying disorder - hallucinations can be caused by drugs or stress or lack of sleep or other things - but they are having, by clinical definition, a psychotic break with reality.

Carl Sagan mentioned that according to some studies roughly one quarter of all people on Earth had a hallucination at least once in their lifetime.

So?
[quite]In fact, all of us are quite capable of having hallucinations without being psychotic. For example go without sleep for long enough and you’ll experience them
[/quote]

Hallucinations are psychotic experiences by definition. It doesn’t mean a person necessarily has an ongoing mental illness or permanent condition, but it means they had a psychotic experience.
[quite]Paul may very well have had a hallucination, but that wouldn’t make him a psychotic.
[/quote]

It means he had a psychotic experience. No matter how you want to slice it, Paul said he got his info from a hallucination. Hallucinations are not evidence.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

1 Corinthians 15. I already quoted it extensively. Here it is again:

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 **it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.**
(1 Cor. 15:35-44)

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that **flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God**, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, **the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed**. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

(1. Cor, 15:50-55)

Paul says clearly and repeatedly that the soma psychika (“body physical”) will be changed into a soma pneumatikon (“body spiritual”). he says “flesh and blood” can’t get into Heaven, and that bodies will be transformed before the resurrection.

Moreover, Paul never makes any claim at all he says a word about Jesus “appearing” in a physical body. Are we supposed to believe Jesus was still in his physical body when he appeared to Paul himself?

Here St. Paul is describing the resurrection of the dead before the final judgement. This is different from what happened to Jesus after the crucifixion. What happened to Jesus after the crucifixion - if it happened; I am reserving judgement - is the same as what happened to Lazarus, as described in John, Chapter 11. Jesus and Lazarus died, they were buried, and life returned to their bodies.

That is how I interpret what St. Paul meant when he wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”

The Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead seems to have come from Ezekiel, Chapter 37, with the vision of the valley of dry bones. The problem with this belief is that during the Final Judgment the bodies of most of those to be judged will have completely disintegrated. St. Paul realized this, and explained how new bodies were to be created.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Here St. Paul is describing the resurrection of the dead before the final judgement. This is different from what happened to Jesus after the crucifixion.

How so? Paul repeatedly characterizes Jesus’ resurrection as being the precursor to all others - as the “first fruit.” He draws no distinction. He also never says that Jesus’ “appearances” were physical, and uses the same word (ὀπτάνομαι - “allow one’s self to be seen”) for himself as he does for the apostles, simply putting himself at the end of the list of witnesses. Since Paul’s experience allegedly occurred after Jesus’ ascension, are we to believe that he came back in physical form to appear to Jesus?

What happened to Jesus after the crucifixion - if it happened; I am reserving judgement

Do you reserve judgement on Icarus’ wings as well? How about Xenu?

• is the same as what happened to Lazarus, as described in John, Chapter 11. Jesus and Lazarus died, they were buried, and life returned to their bodies.

Which would totally contradict Paul. Interesting that Paul says dead physical bodies are replaced with spiritual bodies, yet seems not to be aware of the physical resurrections performed by Jesus (not to mention the one that Acts says Paul performed himself).

As I said, this is all kind of a moot tangent anyway, since Paul’s claims alone are not sufficient to prove that a dead body came back to life.

That is how I interpret what St. Paul meant when he wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”

This interpretation cannot be made from Paul’s words alone.

The Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead seems to have come from Ezekiel

It came from Zorastrianism, actually. Persian influence after the exile. That’s where Judaism got it’s whole eschaton.

[Czarcasm]

Let me get this straight. So far, the best evidence we have for the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus is someone’s interpretation of a story written many years after the supposed event by an anonymous non-eyewitness concerning a vision seen by Paul?

[CurtC]

@New_Deal_Democrat

How can this not mean a physical resurrection? “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain.”

???

That doesn’t mention at all whether he was talking a physical or a spiritual resurrection. From his other writings it’s clear he was talking about a spiritual resurrection, not the same body that died.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That’s the definition of a psychotic experience. Look it up. Psychosis is a break with reality. If you are seeing and hearing things that aren’t there, then you ae, by definition having a psychotic experience. All hallucinations are psychotic. It doesn’t necessarily mean the person has an underlying disorder - hallucinations can be caused by drugs or stress or lack of sleep or other things - but they are having, by clinical definition, a psychotic break with reality.

So?
[quite]In fact, all of us are quite capable of having hallucinations without being psychotic. For example go without sleep for long enough and you’ll experience them

Hallucinations are psychotic experiences by definition. It doesn’t mean a person necessarily has an ongoing mental illness or permanent condition, but it means they had a psychotic experience.
[quite]Paul may very well have had a hallucination, but that wouldn’t make him a psychotic.
[/quote]

It means he had a psychotic experience. No matter how you want to slice it, Paul said he got his info from a hallucination. Hallucinations are not evidence.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think any reputable medical professional would classify a person as “a psychotic” merely on the basis that they had one hallucination following lack of sleep.

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Czarcasm

Let me get this straight. So far, the best evidence we have for the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus is someone’s interpretation of a story written many years after the supposed event by an anonymous non-eyewitness concerning a vision seen by Paul?

That about sums it up. I, for one, am shocked - shocked, I say! - that this is how the evidence played out.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Ibn_Warraq

I don’t think any reputable medical professional would classify a person as “a psychotic” merely on the basis that they had one hallucination following lack of sleep.

Agreed that a psychiatric professional wouldn’t call such a person “a psychotic”, but it is nevertheless true that — strictly speaking — such an hallucination would be psychosis. Diogenes is correct on that count.

(Where he is not correct: claims are not evidence? Er, what? Individual claims may not be good evidence, but of course they can be evidence of a sort. Otherwise [say] polling — or, heck — trusting anybody would be a completely worthless activity. Where people get the idea that “evidence” means “incontrovertible proof” I have no idea.)