"Ultimately, the problem with man is not the absence of evidence, it is the suppression of it." - Ravi Zacharias
How would you respond to the following?
How do you know God exists?
Wasn’t Jesus just a good man?
How do you know that the Bible is true?
Hasn’t science proved the Bible wrong?
The evidences in this section are presented in the following order:
TRUTH –> GOD –> THE BIBLE –> JESUS CHRIST
I’ve presented the subjects in this order because I believe this order is the most logical progression when covering these subjects. The following demonstrate the reasoning for this:
If there is no Truth then we can’t know that God exists.
If we can’t know God exists then we can’t know that the Bible or any other religious writing is from God.
If we can’t know the Bible is from God then it doesn’t matter about the person of Jesus Christ.
If there is truth then we can evaluate different beliefs about God as to their truthfulness.
If a belief about God proves true then any contradictory belief is automatically false, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction.
If God exists and He has communicated to us, then which volume claiming to be from Him shows evidence of this?
If the Bible, which claims to be from God, proves to be from God then any volume which contradicts the Bible is automatically false, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction.
If the Bible proves to be from God, we then have a decision to make about the central personality of the Bible, Jesus Christ. And since Truth isn’t based upon what we like, don’t like, or our sincerity, we have to make the decision to accept or reject Jesus Christ whether we like it or not.
When you think about proving something using evidences, you could liken this to a court trial and the requirements of the evidence used as proof in a trial. I was privileged to be on a jury trial a few years ago, and realized that a jury trial is a very accurate illustration as to the usage of evidences in proving facts. With respect to the evidence in the trial, both the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney emphasized the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Neither of the attorneys ever stated the phrase, “beyond all possible doubt”. When considering evidence we look at the most logical explanation, and then determine the most reasonable conclusion proved by the evidence.
Some will disregard an evidence or evidences for Christianity because they can imagine a scenario, regardless of how unlikely, where the evidence won’t support Christianity. In their belief all they need to do is just come up with a story about the evidence to explain it away, regardless of how unrealistic the story.
Greg Koukl states, "A story is not an argument". He has heard many people come up with stories to explain something or explain something else away, but they provide no reasonable argument using evidences supporting a reason for their explanation. They only have a story. In a courtroom you won’t hear a story presented as actual evidence. In the courtroom, you will hear a conclusion presented by the prosecution or defense which they are trying to prove based upon the evidence. The outcome of the trial is determined by the evidence and not a story. Any conclusion in a courtroom must be consistent with the evidence presented during the trial. This is how we should arrive at conclusions about God, Jesus, etc. By using evidence and not stories, we arrive at far more accurate conclusions.
Taking the idea of a story further, some have even invented alternative explanations to refute a conclusion a person doesn't like. On the subject of the existence of God, one example of an alternative explanation is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". This is something invented by a few Atheist professors who hold to the belief that there is absolutely no evidence for God (according to them). Since they believe there is no evidence for God and that people believe in God, then why not believe in something else that has no evidence and is equally unrealistic? They have proposed what they believe in is an equally unrealistic object of belief. They have thought up the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". They even have a name for the followers of this pasta invention. They refer to followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as Pastafarians. Greg Koukl states that similar to a story not being an argument, an alternate explanation also isn't an argument.
So, is it fair to say that there is no evidence for either God or this Spaghetti invention? After reading this section you will see the difference in that while there isn't any evidence for this pasta invention and creation of the colander there is great evidence for God. The mistake many make is that when they see evidence they don’t like which supports Christianity, they don’t consider it evidence or they consider it insufficient to prove the validity of Christianity. Think again about a court trial. As a juror you are instructed to follow the evidence where it leads, not ignore evidence when it doesn’t lead to the conclusion you like. Check Greg Koukl’s commentary on this and these additional articles.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Video)
Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus and God
A Brief Rebuttal to "The Flying Spaghetti Monster"
Next Page: Truth