- For any witness to be allowed to testify, the side presenting the witness must lay what is known as foundation. To establish foundation, the witness must show he or she has some knowledge material to the case, be it an eyewitness account of what happened or expert testimony to help the jury. If foundation cannot be established, the witness cannot testify.
- Any evidence presented must be relevant to the case at issue, otherwise it is not admissible. Say that the defendant is a known adulterer, for example, and a witness testifies to that fact. The defendant, however, is charged with possession of marijuana. Information about his infidelity to his wife is not admissible because it is not relevant to what he is currently on trial for, possession of marijuana.
- Perhaps the most important rule of evidence is the rule against hearsay. Hearsay is any out-of-court statement, spoken or otherwise, offered to prove the truth of something asserted in court. If the statement is made out of court, as a general rule it is not admissible. If Joe tells Mark he saw Lucy steal a DVD, Joe has to be in court to testify. Mark cannot testify as to what Joe told him, as that is an out-of-court statement offered to prove Lucy took the DVD, and that is hearsay.
- While hearsay seems pretty straightforward, there are numerous exceptions that allow it to come in. Statements made by the defendant, statements made for medical help, statements made on a deathbed, and excited utterances are all admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are nearly 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule.
- In situations where specialized or scientific knowledge may help the jury make its determination, an expert may testify about such knowledge. Experts are not actual witnesses to the crime, but they can offer opinions any information within their area of expertise that may help the jury. Experts in criminal trials testify about everything from ballistics and DNA evidence, to investigation procedures and company policies. Experts must be qualified and are only allowed to testify about their area of expertise.
(The Bible is filled with the Foundations of the Evidence to prove that God exists. A simple reading of the New Testament books can end this debate once and for all, the testimony of the Apostles demonstrate the Life of Christ, his words and his actions.)
Evidence of Relevance
(The case at issue is God, Jesus, and Creation, so THE BEST source of Relevant Evidence concerning anything biblical is....you guessed it The Bible. This is well known to Atheist's even though they deny it to your face, but nonetheless a FACT!)
(Whenever an Atheist tells you that the Bible is 'Hearsay Evidence' doesn't understand what 'Hearsay Evidence' is, the Bible is the evidence that is in court to prove the idea we must understand, the 'Hearsay' is ALL EXTERNAL NONSENSE surrounding the Bible called 'Disinformation', this is the real Hearsay from those without understanding about God! )
`Excited utterance' exception to hearsay rule. (Nursing Law Case of the Month).: An article from: Nursing Law's Regan Report
('Hearsay' that would be allowed is evidence from external sources that validate the biblical sources, Archeology, Science of every type, Geography, Historical settings, Outside Contextual sources like other books, tablets, scrolls within the same time-frame of the Bible that Aline with its time-lines. The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the Old Testament Books NEVER CHANGED over thousands of years. )
The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents withheld for Over 35 Years
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology ReviewUnderstanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review
Evidence of Expert Testimony
These four primary laws of logic are vital–essential–to all coherent or intelligible discussions or arguments.
As I hope is evident, one cannot–in any intelligent sense–not use them! I have witnessed many times evolutionists NOT using good Logic as well as Christians!
How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth from God is absolute.
Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
God did not create the laws of logic.
They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God’s thinking.
Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in God’s image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic.
He does not invent them.
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
Nevertheless, the atheist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.
Examples of the laws of logic:
Law of Identity:
Something is what it is.
Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction:
Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle:
a statement is either true or false.
Thus, the statement, “A statement is either true or false,” is either true or false.
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a “vote.”
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples’ minds, since people are all different in their thoughts on every subject.
Therefore, Logic cannot be born of human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory.
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe, the two are not the same thing.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us.
The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.
For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn’t exist.
How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed?
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
Or, where in nature do we observe that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist.
You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all, and how can any laws of logic be applied to, or derived from, observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities.
They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions.
They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought.
Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior.
But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.
We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.
You don’t watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn’t exist.
Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.
If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God’s existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute.
But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God.
So, we ask, “How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?”
In other words, “How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?”
The threshold of 50% is of course is very casual.
Suppose I want to be a purist, and I decide to demand 100% probability. (I’m from Missouri—show me!) What happens to me then? I get into horrible philosophical/mathematical disputes about whether anything can be proven absolutely. Since we don’t have the opportunity to deal with such things in a short essay like this, we will avoid the question by not considering true absolutes.