J
JJFB
Guest
The proof of the existence of God is the resurrection of Jesus. Only an insane person would not believe Jesus was God after witnessing Jesus rising from the dead after being dead as a door nail for three days, and then Jesus tells you it was God who did it. However, as the resurrection occurred 2000 years ago and you obviously can’t witness that resurrection, I am left to argue evidence of that resurrection or what I call “evidence of proof”. Evidence means “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Proof is a weighing of the evidence and determining that the evidence meets a particular standard of proof. In the law, there are at least five levels of proof ranging from the easiest to hardest to meet. Those levels are reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
The best evidence of proof for Christianity is The Gospels themselves. The Gospels are so utterly brilliant that they provide circumstantial evidence that Jesus was God. The Words of Jesus are so utterly genius that these Words are what one should expect from a supernatural being. The Gospels are the greatest written works of all time and the best selling works of all time. Moreover, as ancient documents, The Gospels are admissible hearsay evidence in a court of law under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16).
If I were to give you a copy of Einstein’s annus miriabilis papers, and told you that they were fiction, after reading those papers you could reasonably conclude that the papers are, in fact, not fiction based on the genius contained therein. You could also conclude that a single brilliant mind was responsible for the creation of those papers. You would have circumstantial evidence that a single person was responsible for those papers, and based on the author’s name appearing on those papers, that Einstein was the author. It is unlikely that any reasonable person would present such genius in the form of fiction, and even if it were presented as fiction, it is even less likely that they wouldn’t at least take authorship or credit for it. In apply this to The Gospels, it is reasonable to conclude that due to the utter genius contained in therein, that a single person was responsible for the Word, and that this person was named Jesus. This is also circumstantial evidence that Jesus actually existed. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law.
Once you have provided the foregoing evidence that Jesus was God, the next question becomes, “what level of proof does this evidence satisfy?” A reasonable level of proof to use is preponderance of the evidence, or in layman’s terms, “more likely than not.” In submitting the evidence that Jesus was God to the jury, a reasonable jury could conclude that based on the utter brilliance of The Gospels, that Jesus was the Son of God. One our side, you have The Gospels and the utter brilliance of the greatest mind that ever existed contained therein to prove Jesus must have been God to devise the Word. We have the opinions of a multitude of highly intelligent people throughout the ages who would agree with the utter brilliance of The Gospels. The other side has many non-believers who do not share this opinion. They have an assumption and presumption that only the material world exists, because that is all they can see or experiment on. Science, however, does not prove that God does not exist. Indeed, there is every reason to assume that the original cause of the creation of the universe is vastly different than our modern laws of physics and the material world as we know it, as we do not know of any way that the quantum field or foam can create itself out of nothingness. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for a jury depending on who sits in the jury box, to conclude that God is more likely than not, and that more likely than not, Jesus was his Son.
Once you have gotten to the point of understanding that it is reasonable to believe that more likely than not, Jesus was the Son of God, the next question is why believe in Jesus and not atheism? At this point, I raise a modified form of Pascal’s Wager. In short, given the options offering infinite reward versus those only offering finite reward, it is reasonable to choose the options offering infinite reward. Even if the probability of an option offering infinite reward is tiny, because the payoff in the form of eternal life is infinite, this means that the reward being offered is always infinite, as a tiny probability multiplied by infinity still equals infinity. Atheism only offers a finite reward of a life of loose moral living followed by a soulless death, or worse, an infinite punishment in hell.
Now, Pascal being a “wagering” man, would choose the option offering infinite reward with the best “odds” of being correct. I’ll call this the “religious racetrack”. You eliminate all options offering infinite reward without evidence of proof, and simply take the “horse” among those options with the best odds or best evidence of proof. Christianity has the best evidence of proof among those options of infinite reward offering proof, as The Gospels are utterly brilliant works beyond any other religious or non-religious work. Indeed, the difference between Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (“FSM”) is that the FSM does not have the brilliance of The Gospels backing him up.
Once you understand that under a modified form of Pascal’s Wager, it is reasonable to believe in Christianity over all other ideologies, philosophies and religions, you can make the argument that you should believe in Jesus and start a journey of Faith that brings you to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists through your personal experience and awareness of God.
The best evidence of proof for Christianity is The Gospels themselves. The Gospels are so utterly brilliant that they provide circumstantial evidence that Jesus was God. The Words of Jesus are so utterly genius that these Words are what one should expect from a supernatural being. The Gospels are the greatest written works of all time and the best selling works of all time. Moreover, as ancient documents, The Gospels are admissible hearsay evidence in a court of law under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16).
If I were to give you a copy of Einstein’s annus miriabilis papers, and told you that they were fiction, after reading those papers you could reasonably conclude that the papers are, in fact, not fiction based on the genius contained therein. You could also conclude that a single brilliant mind was responsible for the creation of those papers. You would have circumstantial evidence that a single person was responsible for those papers, and based on the author’s name appearing on those papers, that Einstein was the author. It is unlikely that any reasonable person would present such genius in the form of fiction, and even if it were presented as fiction, it is even less likely that they wouldn’t at least take authorship or credit for it. In apply this to The Gospels, it is reasonable to conclude that due to the utter genius contained in therein, that a single person was responsible for the Word, and that this person was named Jesus. This is also circumstantial evidence that Jesus actually existed. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law.
Once you have provided the foregoing evidence that Jesus was God, the next question becomes, “what level of proof does this evidence satisfy?” A reasonable level of proof to use is preponderance of the evidence, or in layman’s terms, “more likely than not.” In submitting the evidence that Jesus was God to the jury, a reasonable jury could conclude that based on the utter brilliance of The Gospels, that Jesus was the Son of God. One our side, you have The Gospels and the utter brilliance of the greatest mind that ever existed contained therein to prove Jesus must have been God to devise the Word. We have the opinions of a multitude of highly intelligent people throughout the ages who would agree with the utter brilliance of The Gospels. The other side has many non-believers who do not share this opinion. They have an assumption and presumption that only the material world exists, because that is all they can see or experiment on. Science, however, does not prove that God does not exist. Indeed, there is every reason to assume that the original cause of the creation of the universe is vastly different than our modern laws of physics and the material world as we know it, as we do not know of any way that the quantum field or foam can create itself out of nothingness. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for a jury depending on who sits in the jury box, to conclude that God is more likely than not, and that more likely than not, Jesus was his Son.
Once you have gotten to the point of understanding that it is reasonable to believe that more likely than not, Jesus was the Son of God, the next question is why believe in Jesus and not atheism? At this point, I raise a modified form of Pascal’s Wager. In short, given the options offering infinite reward versus those only offering finite reward, it is reasonable to choose the options offering infinite reward. Even if the probability of an option offering infinite reward is tiny, because the payoff in the form of eternal life is infinite, this means that the reward being offered is always infinite, as a tiny probability multiplied by infinity still equals infinity. Atheism only offers a finite reward of a life of loose moral living followed by a soulless death, or worse, an infinite punishment in hell.
Now, Pascal being a “wagering” man, would choose the option offering infinite reward with the best “odds” of being correct. I’ll call this the “religious racetrack”. You eliminate all options offering infinite reward without evidence of proof, and simply take the “horse” among those options with the best odds or best evidence of proof. Christianity has the best evidence of proof among those options of infinite reward offering proof, as The Gospels are utterly brilliant works beyond any other religious or non-religious work. Indeed, the difference between Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (“FSM”) is that the FSM does not have the brilliance of The Gospels backing him up.
Once you understand that under a modified form of Pascal’s Wager, it is reasonable to believe in Christianity over all other ideologies, philosophies and religions, you can make the argument that you should believe in Jesus and start a journey of Faith that brings you to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists through your personal experience and awareness of God.
