Understanding Evidence
There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof". Let's for a moment consider Big Foot. Actually finding and capturing Big Foot and parading him for the world to see would constitute as proof that Big Foot is real. Instead lets say you get a few photos from a distance, find chunks of hair on branches that don't match any other animals, you find some more foot prints. A group of people actually see Big Foot so you have eye witnesses. None of this is absolute proof because it is possible to be faked, so these things would be pieces of evidence. Evidence doesn't out right prove an argument on its own, but get enough evidence together and it can become proof.
Say a man goes into a shop and steals an expensive watch from a counter. Nobody sees him take the watch, and they don't find the watch on him when the cops pull him over. So there is no real proof he stole the watch. Then they start watching camera footage and find the panning camera sees the watch on the counter at 5:42 PM and the next time it passes the counter at 5:45 PM, the watch is gone. The footage also sees the man walking toward the counter between those times but doesn't see him go past the counter before it is out of range. This is evidence that the man could have stolen the watch but it is not proof.
Another camera's footage sees the man walking out the door at 5:47 without purchasing anything. His hands are deep in his coat pockets as he walks out the door. Going further back in that footage they find the man entered the store at 5:40 PM, so its obvious he didn't spend much time shopping around. Then the footage of another camera on the outside of the store shows the man pull something out of his pocket and hand it to another man as he walks past a car, then heads straight to his own car.
You can see how even though you do not have any absolute proof of something, but you can put enough different pieces of evidence together, to spell out a clear enough story, to prove something without one single bit of absolute proof.
God is the same way. Is there one piece of absolute proof that God is real or that Jesus is real or that Christianity is right? No. But there is so much evidence out there that when you piece it all together it spells out a very clear story.
Another thing I want to make clear is the most famous saying in the court of law. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word I want to make clear in this is "reasonable". In a highly publicized court case a few years ago, there was a woman who was under trial for killing her little girl. Many of you may have paid attention to the Casey Anthony trial. Throughout the trial, her lawyer kept pressing that if the jury can find any doubt that she would be the murderer, they must presume she is innocent. It was the biggest mistake of the prosecuting attorneys to not clear up the way he was misleading the jury in that regard. You see, it is impossible to prove someone guilty to the point that there can be no possible doubt. One with an imagination can always conjure up some possible doubt. But the jury doesn't need to be beyond any possible doubt. It only needed to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt. There was enough evidence in that trial to pronounce her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There just was not enough evidence to say guilty beyond any possible doubt.
Evidence can be slightly misleading however. Some think if the evidence can be seen from a different point of view, it is not good evidence. Not true. Evidence can be used to back up more than one theory at the same time. Just because you can come up with a different theory for the evidence, does not mean it stops backing up the original theory. It only means it can be seen in more than one way. After all, that is precisely the reason it is called "evidence" and not "proof". If the evidence could only fit one possible theory, then it would be proof of that theory. Not just a bit of evidence. So long as it can be used to back up the theory you are trying to prove, it is evidence for that theory, even if it can be seen as evidence for another theory as well. The fewer theories it can back up however, the stronger the evidence is.
God is real. Jesus is real. Jesus died on the cross and rose again in three days. Christianity is the one correct religion. There is no one bit of proof of any of this, but there is enough evidence of these things that when you piece it all together, it is enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that each of those statements are true.
I will start you off with one piece of evidence before you read any articles. Something I want you to keep in mind. In the court of law, a single eye witness can be enough evidence to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life. One eye witness to the crime! Yet there are literally millions of people who will say they have experienced Gods presence in their life. Millions would say under oath with their hand on the Bible (and that oath means more to Christians than anyone else) that God has answered a prayer for them before. Tens of thousands have experienced healing in some way. If one eye witness is enough evidence to put someone in jail for murder, how are so many more witnesses to God's existence completely ignored?
Return to Evidence of God Articles
Return to One God Logic Articles
Say a man goes into a shop and steals an expensive watch from a counter. Nobody sees him take the watch, and they don't find the watch on him when the cops pull him over. So there is no real proof he stole the watch. Then they start watching camera footage and find the panning camera sees the watch on the counter at 5:42 PM and the next time it passes the counter at 5:45 PM, the watch is gone. The footage also sees the man walking toward the counter between those times but doesn't see him go past the counter before it is out of range. This is evidence that the man could have stolen the watch but it is not proof.
Another camera's footage sees the man walking out the door at 5:47 without purchasing anything. His hands are deep in his coat pockets as he walks out the door. Going further back in that footage they find the man entered the store at 5:40 PM, so its obvious he didn't spend much time shopping around. Then the footage of another camera on the outside of the store shows the man pull something out of his pocket and hand it to another man as he walks past a car, then heads straight to his own car.
You can see how even though you do not have any absolute proof of something, but you can put enough different pieces of evidence together, to spell out a clear enough story, to prove something without one single bit of absolute proof.
God is the same way. Is there one piece of absolute proof that God is real or that Jesus is real or that Christianity is right? No. But there is so much evidence out there that when you piece it all together it spells out a very clear story.
Another thing I want to make clear is the most famous saying in the court of law. A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word I want to make clear in this is "reasonable". In a highly publicized court case a few years ago, there was a woman who was under trial for killing her little girl. Many of you may have paid attention to the Casey Anthony trial. Throughout the trial, her lawyer kept pressing that if the jury can find any doubt that she would be the murderer, they must presume she is innocent. It was the biggest mistake of the prosecuting attorneys to not clear up the way he was misleading the jury in that regard. You see, it is impossible to prove someone guilty to the point that there can be no possible doubt. One with an imagination can always conjure up some possible doubt. But the jury doesn't need to be beyond any possible doubt. It only needed to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt. There was enough evidence in that trial to pronounce her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There just was not enough evidence to say guilty beyond any possible doubt.
Evidence can be slightly misleading however. Some think if the evidence can be seen from a different point of view, it is not good evidence. Not true. Evidence can be used to back up more than one theory at the same time. Just because you can come up with a different theory for the evidence, does not mean it stops backing up the original theory. It only means it can be seen in more than one way. After all, that is precisely the reason it is called "evidence" and not "proof". If the evidence could only fit one possible theory, then it would be proof of that theory. Not just a bit of evidence. So long as it can be used to back up the theory you are trying to prove, it is evidence for that theory, even if it can be seen as evidence for another theory as well. The fewer theories it can back up however, the stronger the evidence is.
God is real. Jesus is real. Jesus died on the cross and rose again in three days. Christianity is the one correct religion. There is no one bit of proof of any of this, but there is enough evidence of these things that when you piece it all together, it is enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that each of those statements are true.
I will start you off with one piece of evidence before you read any articles. Something I want you to keep in mind. In the court of law, a single eye witness can be enough evidence to put a man behind bars for the rest of his life. One eye witness to the crime! Yet there are literally millions of people who will say they have experienced Gods presence in their life. Millions would say under oath with their hand on the Bible (and that oath means more to Christians than anyone else) that God has answered a prayer for them before. Tens of thousands have experienced healing in some way. If one eye witness is enough evidence to put someone in jail for murder, how are so many more witnesses to God's existence completely ignored?
Return to Evidence of God Articles
Return to One God Logic Articles
