Closing Argument: Make a Decision and Make It Now
Closing Argument
Make a Decision and Make It Now
“Get in there, knucklehead!”
Alan Jeffries was even grumpier than usual. None of us had slept in over thirty hours, and our suspect, Timothy Bernard, refused to talk to us about his relationship with Richard Matthews. We arrested him for Richard’s murder nonetheless. Alan was frustrated with Bernard’s arrogant defiance; he slammed the door of the holding cell after booking him for the homicide.
“Can’t wait to see the expression on your face when the jury convicts you, Mr. Bernard.” Alan gathered the booking forms and headed to the watch commander’s office to have them signed.
Alan’s observations at the crime scene made the arrest possible. When there’s evidence someone outside the room is responsible for what happened inside the room, the reasonable inference of homicide must be investigated. We interviewed several friends and business partners and eventually identified Bernard as a professional associate of our victim. Richard Matthews had cheated Bernard out of approximately $40,000. Bernard had been sending threatening texts, and the argument escalated until Bernard’s pride got the better of him.
We wrote a search warrant for Bernard’s home and discovered shoes matching the prints in Richard’s house (they also matched the impressions in the mud). In addition, we discovered more of the bullets he used in the pistol we found in Richard’s house. In the weeks to come, our CSI and crime lab personnel would also match Bernard to the fingerprints and DNA at the scene.
The case against Timothy Bernard began when we determined Richard’s death was not accidental, the result of natural causes, or an act of suicide. The evidence for an outside intruder was compelling, and the evidence supporting an inside cause—such as an accidental, natural, or suicidal death—was insufficient. The evidence “inside the room” pointed to someone “outside the room.”
In addition to this, we were able to determine something about the nature of our external suspect from the evidence in the crime scene. The texts on Richard’s phone, the shoe prints and bullets at the scene, the additional rounds we discovered in Bernard’s home, and the fingerprints and DNA at the scene identified Bernard and revealed something about his motive and nature.
After identifying the evidence “inside the room,” we were able to determine Richard’s house was a crime scene rather than simply a death scene. After examining the nature of this evidence, we were able to identify the most reasonable suspect: this was Timothy Bernard’s crime scene.
If we take a similar approach to the evidence we find in the universe, we can determine if it is simply the result of “accidental,” unguided, or “natural” causes, or if it is the result of something more intentional. As it turns out, the evidence for an outside intruder is compelling and the evidence supporting an inside cause (involving only matter and the laws of physics and chemistry) is insufficient. The evidence “inside the room” points to someone “outside the room.”
Take a close look at the cumulative evidence pointing to the existence and involvement of an external suspect. Our case is based on far more than the failure of natural explanations “inside the room.” We’re not inferring God’s existence simply on the basis of a negative case against naturalism. Instead, we’re inferring supernaturalism on the strength of a positive case, given the cumulative evidence. In fact, the universe displays the very characteristics we would expect to find if it had been created by the Divine suspect we’ve described in our profile.
Many of the evidential principles we’ve discussed in prior chapters are useful at this point in our investigation. The diversity-certainty ratio described in chapter 1 highlights the strength of our inference: the eight facts we examined are from four unrelated categories of evidence.
The importance of separating what’s reasonable from what’s imaginable, described in chapter 2, is also of value at this point: the existence of an external cause is more than simply possible; it is the most reasonable inference given the evidence “inside the room.”
The strength of the case isn’t dependent on any single item of evidence but instead is assembled from the cumulative set of facts, as we described in chapter 4.
Our case is built on more than simply physical evidence; it is also formed from nonphysical evidences in the universe, as discussed in chapter 7.
Finally, a careful and cautious examination of exculpatory evidence, as described in chapter 8, also failed to diminish the strength of our case.
Along the way, you may have noticed something about the explanations offered for the evidence we’ve examined in the universe. The explanations from “inside the room” are varied and contradictory. Cosmological models conflict with one another, and scientists argue against one another vigorously. Explanations for the origin of life are even more diverse and conflicting, as are the theories related to consciousness, free will, and moral truth.
The best philosophers and scientists cannot agree on how to explain these phenomena from “inside the room”; each believes the other’s proposal is inadequate or incorrect.
I’ve seen something similar in my criminal trials. Defense arguments sometimes encourage jurors to consider a variety of alternative possibilities. These alternatives seldom agree with one another, but they do offer jurors alternatives to the case presented by the prosecution. The varied defense explanations typically cannot explain the evidence as thoroughly (nor as completely) as the defendant, however. His involvement accounts for the evidence in a unified and compelling manner.
In a similar way, the external “suspect” we’ve offered from “outside the room” of the universe addresses the evidence we see “inside the room” in a unified, thorough, and compelling manner:
A “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”
Scientists and physicists have been searching for a “Theory of Everything” for decades. They’d like to unify theories of quantum mechanics (explaining physical interactions at the quantum level) and the theory of general relativity (explaining physical interactions at the macro level). They’re looking for a single theory, a single explanation. It turns out there is a unified explanation for everything we see (and don’t see) in our universe. It’s not an impersonal set of physical properties or laws, however. It’s a personal, all-powerful Divine Being.
Like other scenes I’ve investigated, we can determine something about the nature of our external suspect from the evidence in the “crime scene.” The cosmological, biological, mental, and moral evidence “inside the room” points to a particular kind of external suspect who possesses specific characteristics.
The evidence we’ve identified in the universe is best explained by an external suspect, and given the nature of this evidence, our suspect is clearly nonspatial, atemporal, nonmaterial, and uncaused. Our suspect is also powerful enough to create everything we see in the universe and purposeful enough to produce a universe fine-tuned for life.
Our suspect is intelligent and communicative, creative and resourceful. As a conscious Mind, our suspect is the personal source of moral truth and obligation and the standard for goodness.
Only one Being can be described in this way; only one suspect can reasonably explain the evidence in our “crime” scene: this is God’s “crime scene.”
THE PROBLEM WITH INTRUDERS
For some who read this book, the evidence couldn’t be clearer. For others, the case for a Divine Intruder is still lacking. That’s the problem with intruders: few people are comfortable with their existence. If you’ve ever been the victim of a burglary, you know how hard it is to get comfortable in your own home once an intruder has violated it.
For many of us who have lived successfully with a sense of autonomy and freedom, the idea of a Divine Intruder is equally uncomfortable. Who, after all, wants to be intruded upon? If you feel this way, you might want to rethink any resistance you still have to the evidence for such an intruder in our universe. Is your resistance a matter of evidential insufficiency or simply a matter of intruder discomfort?
One way to overcome your discomfort with the idea of a Divine Intruder is to rethink the nature of your home and the identity of the Intruder. I bet you never think of yourself as an intruder when you come home after a day at work or an afternoon of running errands. At your house, you are the inhabitant, not the intruder. You can’t be an intruder in your own home.
The Divine Intruder we’ve described as the source for all the cosmological, biological, mental, and moral evidence in the universe is the Creator of our home. It’s His house and He’s still the primary owner and inhabitant. In our limited, self-focused view of reality, we’ve imagined this to be our universe, when in fact, it is His. We are His guests. We are the ones living in the universe God created, resisting the existence of our Creator (and landlord), and viewing Him as the intruder in our lives.
As an atheist, I was very comfortable as the captain of my own ship. My life was fulfilling and rewarding. I had been a police officer for nearly ten years and was used to being in charge in difficult situations. I didn’t like intrusions, and there was no room for God in my life. I am not a theist today because I was raised by believers—I wasn’t. I am not a believer because I was hoping for heaven or afraid of hell—I had no sense of value for either. I am not a theist because I was trying to fill a “void” or satisfy a “need”—I felt none.
I believe God exists because the evidence leaves me no reasonable alternative.
The evidence “inside the room” points to a very specific “suspect.” He’s not a malicious intruder. Although I’ve titled this book God’s Crime Scene (in an effort to illustrate an evidential approach to the investigation of the universe), God hasn’t committed any crime here. In addition, God is not an unconcerned intruder; He isn’t dispassionate about His creation.
In chapter 1 we looked at three causal questions but left the third question about explanations unanswered: Why is there something rather than nothing? If the first cause of the universe is an impersonal force, the universe is simply the consequence of physics; there would be no reason for its existence beyond these physical processes. But if the first cause of the universe is personal—as the evidence indicates—then everything changes.
Personal agents decide to create, even when they don’t have to. Given the nature of personal agents, it’s appropriate to ask the question: Why did God create the universe in the first place? The evidence we’ve examined provides us with several clues. Look, for example, at the incredible care He’s exhibited in the fine-tuning of the universe and the detailed creativity He’s displayed in the design of biological structures. He’s created a universe in which love is made possible by an extravagant respect for personal free agency, and He’s created us as more than simple material beings subject to the evil and injustice of our brief, temporal lives.
God appears to be driven by His love for His creation. Given all the Creator has done to fashion a home and a life for beings such as ourselves, why wouldn’t we expect Him to be interested and involved in our daily lives?
As it turns out, our Divine suspect is not an intruder at all; He’s the provider, sustainer, and primary inhabitant of the universe. We are God’s invited guests, and although it’s His house, He created it with us in mind.
INTRUDERS TURN A SENSE OF CURIOSITY INTO A SENSE OF URGENCY
When Alan determined we had an intruder, everything changed. Our sense of curiosity escalated into a sense of urgency. We reacted quickly, and Timothy Bernard was in custody within two days.
Now it’s your turn. There’s more than enough evidence to determine the identity of the “suspect” who’s responsible for the evidence in our “crime scene,” and this case is far more important than any murder case I’ve ever worked. The suspect in view here is God, the very Being who has given us life. We’ve identified Him; it’s time to act decisively and with an appropriate sense of urgency. If you’ve been merely interested in the existence of God in the past, it’s time to turn your curiosity into action.
Jurors evaluate evidential cases every day across our country, and they are asked to make a decision even though they don’t have every question answered or every possible detail explained. When the overwhelming evidence points to a reasonable conclusion, jurors make a decision, even though the case may not be perfect.
The standard of proof (SOP) in the most critical of criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “beyond a possible doubt.” I’ve never conducted the perfect investigation, and we’ve never presented the perfect case before a jury. But in my career as a cold-case detective, I’ve never lost. Jurors can’t wait for what might be discovered ten years from now. If there’s enough evidence to make a decision, they’re asked to make a decision.
When it comes to the case for God’s existence, there’s enough evidence. Decide now:
If you’ve just now become interested in the existence of God, I hope this book will begin a passionate, urgent investigation. I am not an expert witness; I’m only a detective. So I’ve listed some of the expert witnesses you might want to consider examining as you continue an investigation of your own. They’re in the Case Files section following this postscript. I would also encourage you to read the Secondary Investigation and Investigative Case Notes at the end of this book. I’ve done my best to help you take another step in your understanding, and I’ve cited my research to provide you with a variety of facts and details.
If the evidence in this book has been compelling to you and you’ve decided a Divine Creator is the best explanation for the evidence in the universe, you’re now among the vast majority of people on our planet who accept that proposition. But given the variety of theistic worldviews available, which, if any of them, is true? The case for God’s existence presented in this book might apply to a number of religious systems positing a personal God, particularly the monotheistic traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I would encourage you to investigate the claims of these systems with equal vigor.
If you’re already a believer, let me also encourage you to act with an appropriate sense of urgency. If you’ve taken the time to share what you love about your favorite sports team, your favorite television show, or your favorite restaurant with the people who matter in your life—why in the world wouldn’t you be excited enough to share what you believe about the true nature of the universe and the Being who created it? Don’t delay. Share the truth.
At the age of thirty-five, I began to examine the claims of the New Testament Gospels as eyewitness accounts, and I’ve chronicled my investigation in Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. I determined the gospel accounts to be a reliable record of the life of Jesus. But just as importantly, I found the Bible to be an undeniably true description of the universe in which we live. The Bible describes the universe’s beginning and the fact it was caused by an eternal personal Being “outside the room.”1 The Bible also describes the expansion of our universe,2 the second law of thermodynamics,3 and the beginning of time.4 The Scriptures describe God as the fine-tuner of the universe5 and the “author of life.”6 He created us with minds capable of making choices.7 He is the ultimate moral authority8 and the source of righteousness by which we define evil.9 This biblical description of God is consistent with my observations of the universe. Another former skeptic named Paul once said there was no excuse for those who denied the existence of God: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”10
Murder investigations go cold when the first detectives fail to act with a sense of urgency. If they wait too long, potential witnesses are harder to locate and evidence is destroyed before it can be recovered. Even as a cold-case detective, I have a similar sense of urgency in my secondary investigation. If I wait too long, my witnesses or suspects may die of old age before I can contact and interview them. To be successful, I have to work within the lifetime of the people involved in my case.
I hope you feel a similar sense of urgency about the evidence in God’s “crime scene.” Our temporal lives are short and often difficult. Let’s act now, while we are on this side of eternity, to make the most important decision of our lives. Let’s also help our friends and family to examine the evidence “inside the room” so they can understand the true nature of the universe and the hope we have for a life beyond the grave.
Start an investigation. Examine the evidence. Come to a verdict. Make the case to others.