Evidence of God

It's not evidence for God, it's evidences of God. Now, historically and scientifically there are many arguments that prove that there is God. Two most important arguments are Cosmological Argument and Fine tuning or Intelligent Designer or design argument.

Now, if we were to look back at time we could possibly say there was a time before that time. This was the thought on time by philosophers and scientists until recent times. Say for example if I say 10 million years they say there was 10 million plus a year before that, this could go for million and million and billions of years. So, they came to a conclusion pointing to eternity, that there could be no specific point of time in the past that could be pointed out. But, recently in the late 19 and 20th century a bunch of scientist proved that there was a beginning, this is precesily what the Bible points to when it says, "In the beginning God created Heavens and the earth".

This points to a Creator rather than merely a force, because forces are of 4 types and they are not a begin. A force cannot think or have will.

According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction.

The second argument is the fine tuning of universe, we are not just speaking about the life on the planet earth, which is thought to have evolued over a period of time and the stronger has the ability to survive and we are just animals from same ansistors, which basically is a lie and there are no proofs. 

Smolin concludes that the chances that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters contains stars suitable to sustain life are ridiculously small. He calculates it to be infinitesimally smaller than one against the sum of all neutrons and protons in all the stars of the observable universe combined, which is 1E80. The number he comes up with, one chance in 1E229 *), comes from a straightforward calculation, explained in the notes to the chapter of his book. A common objection against this sort of calculations is that it is fallacious to vary only one parameter while holding all the rest constant, and probability space would be considerably widened were several parameters allowed to co-vary. Yet as cosmologist Luke Barnes shows in his in his article from p. 19 onward, with impressive graphs for a number of cases, in general this objection does not hold.
*) that is one chance in 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. No, this is not a joke. (You can do the math yourself: a trillion is 1E12, a trillion trillion (or a trillion times trillion) is 1E24, and so on.)
Max Tegmark writes:

"For instance, if the electromagnetic force were weakened by a mere 4%, then the sun would immediately explode (the diproton would have a bound state, which would increase the solar luminosity by a factor 1E18). If it were stronger, there would be fewer stable atoms. Indeed, most if not all the parameters affecting low-energy physics appear fine-tuned at some level, in the sense that changing them by modest amounts results in a qualitatively different universe.
"If the weak interaction were substantially weaker, there would be no hydrogen around, since it would have been converted to helium shortly after the Big Bang. If it were either much stronger or much weaker, the neutrinos from a supernova explosion would fail to blow away the outer parts of the star, and it is doubtful whether life-supporting heavy elements would ever be able to leave the stars where they were produced. If the protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons unable to hold onto electrons, so there would be no stable atoms around. If the proton-to-electron mass ratio were much smaller, there could be no stable stars, and if it were much larger, there could be no ordered structures like crystals and DNA molecules."Leonard Susskind writes in The Cosmic Landscape:

"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident." (The vacuum energy relates to the cosmological constant.)Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:


"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).




To conclude, life in this planet exists because God created the Universe, Time and Matter. He created us humans in his Image. Godhead Father, Son Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit are one. Jesus-The son of God lived a sinless life dead for us and rose on the third day.

His resurrection points to life after death. A hope for all of us.

This is a scientific world. We look at things according to the preponderance of facts. So if we look at data and it looks like something has occurred that may be miraculous, we’ve got to put the miraculous question on the back burner and at first just ask the historical question: What happened with the Resurrection? We don’t have to decide right now if God raised Jesus, but I think the way to start is to say, “What happened in time and space? Was there a man named Jesus? Did He die on a cross? And did His Disciples see Him again?”

Let’s not ask right now, “Is the Resurrection of Jesus an event caused by God?” This is not a question historians can help us answer. They will tell you they don’t have the tools to talk about miracles. But they do have the tools to say this man walked and talked in first century Palestine. Secondly, they have the tools to say He died on the cross, a victim of Roman crucifixion. They have the tools to say people believed they saw Him afterwards.

Can Miracles Happen?

On the one hand I want to say miracles cannot be ruled out a priori. But on the other hand, I want to say, “Let’s first talk about what is good history and then we’ll ask the question, “Could any of these be miraculous?” I think what I’m getting here is that historians do not have a choice but to take a line of facts in the direction that the data point us. If history says Jesus is thus and so, we have to be open to looking at that.

Now, what I meant there about the Resurrection goes something like this: I want to know if a man named Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked on the earth about 25, 27, 28 A.D. Historians come in and say, “Oh, yes. Virtually nobody thinks that He didn’t live.” Rudolf Bultmann, by the way, said, “We are now at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus lived, walked, talked in history.” So, the historian steps in and says, “Yes, I’ve got data for that.”

How about, “He died”? “Well, that’s not problem. Most people die.” And historians say, “Let’s follow that path. Yes, it takes us to the cross. The Romans hung Jesus, they put Him on the cross, He died, and we can find that in history.”

Now, when you get to the Resurrection, people start getting a little nervous. But here’s the point I’m making: let’s not ask the question, “Did God intervene and pull Him out of the tomb?” Let’s ask a much easier question, “Jesus of Nazareth, who walked and talked in Palestine, who was believed to have been crucified on the cross, did anybody claim to have seen Him alive after the cross? Did people walk with Him, and talk to Him and touch Him?”

You know, C. S. Lewis says the miraculous part of an event is “the initial aspect where it enters history. But after that, everything else is very normal. For example, if Jesus multiplied loaves and fish for 5,000-plus people, once He did the miracle—the multiplication–everybody ate, everybody was full, and everybody got tired. That’s what happens after you eat, that’s what food does—the miracle is the multiplication, not the eating and all this.

With the Resurrection accounts, we want to ask a simple question: Was there a man named Jesus, did He die on the cross, and did people claim to see Him afterwards? If so, why? Those are certainly claims that historians can get their fingers on. We have data there.

Just the Historical Facts

Now, the question here, obviously, is what kind of data do we have? What are the “facts”? Because some people are going to be screaming, saying, “There are no facts!” Evangelical Christians are going to look at the New Testament text and say, “Facts are all over the place. Every time I read and find one, that’s a fact, because I believe the Scriptures are inspired.” Others will say, “No. It’s only a book of ancient literature.” Now you have to ask the question, “Which are believable facts and which are not?”

Most scholars will give you a list of facts surrounding the events that Christians call the Gospel: the trial, the death, the burial, the resurrection of Jesus. I think there are at least twelve facts that critical scholars will admit. The vast majority of scholars will give you more than these, but there are at least twelve facts virtually every scholar will admit.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried. Nothing strange about these things. Most people die. Most people are buried.
3. His death caused the Disciples to despair and lose hope, believing His life had ended. What would you say if your best friend died very suddenly?
4. Now, I admit this one is not as widely held, but many scholars believe that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
5. The Disciples had experiences… [And I’ll say this the way that even the critics will be able to accept it, I think.] The Disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. They thought Jesus appeared to them.
6. Because of these experiences the Disciples were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection. They had been afraid of their own shadow, so to speak, and certainly afraid to identify themselves with Jesus.
7. This message was the center of preaching in the early Church. Remember what Paul said–”Of first importance”: death, burial, resurrection of Jesus.
8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.
9. As a result of this preaching, the Church was born and it grew.
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship. And that’s significant for Jewish believers.
11. Jesus’ own brother James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also “believed” that he saw the resurrected Jesus.
12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he likewise “believed” to be the appearance of the risen Jesus.

What I’m saying is that with the exception of the empty tomb, virtually all critical scholars accept this list as historical, and most of them will even grant the empty tomb. You can check my book, The Historical Jesus, as well as books by others to find lists of critical scholars who accept all of these things.

Now, you might say, “Wait a minute. Twelve? That’s not bad, but can we cut this list down? Can we get some more skeptics involved by being even pickier in what data we take?

All right. I’ll arbitrarily reduce this list to say four, five, or six:

• Jesus died due to crucifixion;

• The Disciples had experiences that they believed were the appearance of the risen Jesus;

• Their lives were transformed because of that; and

• A man named Saul of Tarsus believed that he was converted to Jesus by an appearance, a personal appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

These are four tough facts that virtually anybody is going to give you. And I think that we can build a case for that central proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus based on just these four facts alone. We might add a couple of others in here:

• The Resurrection is the center of early Christian preaching;

• What do you do with a fellow like James, the brother of Jesus–a skeptic who comes to Christ?

• The fact that the Resurrection of Christ was proclaimed very early.

Now, here’s my point. With these facts, and the data that modify these facts, that are admitted by all, we have enough of a basis to say that Jesus died and that He was raised again from the dead. You can take home the whole pie with just these facts.

From-https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-gary-r-habermas/facts-concerning-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/

On miracles

If I put six pennies into a drawer on Monday and six more on Tuesday, the laws decree that – other things being equal – I shall find twelve pennies there on Wednesday. But if the drawer is has been robbed I may in fact find only two. Something will have been broken (the lock of the drawer or the laws of England) but the laws of arithmetic will not have been broken.

Lewis, C. S. (1947) ‘Miracles’ ‘Chapter 8: Miracles and the Laws of Nature’ p 60