is the question of whether these central doctrines are true.

Christians are fond of saying that the Resurrection is one of the
best attested facts in history. I hold that the evidence for the
Resurrection would not be listened to in a court of law, and is
quite inadmissible in a court of cool and impartial reason.

First of all, then, what is the fact which this evidence is supposed
to prove? The fact alleged is a most marvellous miracle, and one
upon which a religion professed by some hundreds of millions of
human beings is founded. The fact alleged is that nearly two
thousand years ago God came into the world as a man, that He was
known as Jesus of Nazareth, that He was crucified, died upon the
cross, was laid in a tomb, and on the third day came to life again,
left His tomb, and subsequently ascended into Heaven.

The fact alleged, then, is miraculous and important, and the
evidence in proof of such a fact should be overwhelmingly strong.

We should demand stronger evidence in support of a thing alleged
to have happened a thousand years ago than we should demand in
support of a fact alleged to have happened yesterday.

The Resurrection is alleged to have happened eighteen centuries ago.

We should demand stronger evidence in support of an alleged fact
which was outside human experience than we should demand in support
of a fact common to human experience.

The incarnation of a God in human form, the resurrection of a man