Cold-Case Christianity

1.Wallace opens with the idea of "presuppositions" — the background beliefs we bring to any investigation that can skew our interpretation of evidence before we even look at it. What presuppositions about Christianity or religion do you recognize in yourself? Are they helping you think clearly or getting in the way?

1.Wallace introduces "abductive reasoning" — reasoning to the best explanation — as the primary logical tool of the detective. In your own words, how does abductive reasoning differ from deductive reasoning (which moves from guaranteed premises to certain conclusions)? Which do you use more often in daily life?

1.Wallace argues that circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence — it can actually be more reliable in certain respects. What is the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence? Why might multiple independent pieces of circumstantial evidence be more convincing than a single eyewitness account?

1.Wallace lays out several criteria detectives use to evaluate whether a witness is telling the truth. What are those criteria? Which ones do you think are most important, and why?

1.Wallace describes the detective discipline of paying close attention to the specific, unguarded details in a witness's statement — the throwaway remarks that a liar would never think to fabricate. What examples does he give from his case work? What makes incidental details so diagnostically valuable?

1.Wallace introduces the distinction between an "artifact" — something present at the scene that is incidental to the crime — and genuine "evidence" that actually bears on the case. How does this distinction apply when reading the Gospels? What kinds of difficulties or apparent contradictions might be artifacts rather than evidence of dishonesty?

1.Wallace now shifts from general detective principles to applying them specifically to the Gospel accounts. The first question he asks is whether the Gospel writers — or their immediate sources — were eyewitnesses to what they report. What is the traditional identification of the four Gospel authors, and what evidence supports placing them (or their primary sources) at the scene?

1.Wallace argues that the Gospel accounts can be tested against external, non-Christian sources — both Roman and Jewish — that corroborate key details about Jesus, his ministry, his execution, and the early church's claims. What specific external sources does he cite, and what do each of them confirm?

1.Wallace examines whether the Gospels are internally consistent — meaning they do not contradict themselves in ways that would disqualify a witness in court. How does he handle the apparent discrepancies between Gospel accounts (for example, different details about the women at the tomb or the wording of the inscription on the cross)? Are his harmonizations convincing to you?

1.Wallace acknowledges that the Gospel writers were not neutral observers — they were passionate believers in what they had witnessed. Does passion or personal investment automatically invalidate a witness's testimony? How do detectives navigate testimony from witnesses who clearly care deeply about the outcome?

1.Wallace introduces the cosmological argument — the argument from the existence and beginning of the universe to the existence of a First Cause. How does he frame this as a detective problem? What "evidence at the scene" points toward a cause that is outside the universe?

1.Wallace introduces the fine-tuning argument: the observation that the fundamental constants of physics are calibrated to an astonishing degree of precision to permit life. What are some of the examples he gives of these "just right" conditions? How fine is the tuning, and what are the odds of it occurring by chance?

1.Wallace presents the moral argument for God's existence: the observation that objective moral truths (e.g., torturing children for fun is wrong) seem to exist independently of what any individual or culture believes. How does he develop this argument in detective terms? What "evidence at the scene" of moral experience points toward a moral Lawgiver?

1.Wallace introduces what philosophers call the "hard problem of consciousness" — the difficulty of explaining why and how purely physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective, first-person experience. Why is this a problem for a purely materialist worldview? Why doesn't "the brain does it" fully answer the question?

1.Wallace frequently says that a good detective doesn't just collect evidence — they eventually have to reach a verdict and act on it. Having worked through the entire book, what is your verdict? Has your confidence in the reliability of the Gospels and the existence of God increased, decreased, or remained the same? What moved you most?