You can have your five philosophical arguments for the existence of God. If they work for you, that’s just fine, but I’ve always found the five philosophical arguments for the existence of God to be too philosophical and argumentative.
Atheists like to say, “Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,” and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, “What kind of evidence do you want?” Strangely, they seem stumped by my request.
So I answer the question for them. “Would you like forensic evidence? Documentary evidence? Archaeological evidence? Botanical and biological evidence? Would you like photographic evidence? Logical evidence? Historical evidence? Eyewitness evidence? Legal evidence?” In fact, all of these forms of evidence for the existence of God exist, but first we do have to play some of those philosophical head games.
You see, if God does not exist, then the natural order must be a closed system. That is to say, it must operate according to the rules of nature. No miracles are allowed because a miracle would mean that there is a force that is outside of nature and therefore independent and greater than nature. If there is just one miracle, however — and we only need one — then nature is not a closed system and there is a force greater than nature and outside of nature. If that miracle is intelligible, that is to say, it makes sense, then the force that is greater than nature is intelligent, and if it is intelligent than it is more than a force, it is a personality. The force, if you like, has a face.
The one miracle that Christians claim above all others is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Arguments for the existence of God are much more interesting when they begin with the evidence for the resurrection. Conversations with atheists should therefore begin with that one miracle, and discussions about that alleged miracle two thousand years ago become very interesting very quickly.
When considering the claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, there are really only three options. First, that he did not really die and the “resurrection” was therefore only a form of resuscitation; second that he did die, but something happened so that his body vanished and third, the witnesses to the resurrection were deluded, deceived or were themselves deceptive.
If Jesus didn’t really die, then we have to suppose that the professional Roman executioners (who did their work in public) messed up. We also have to believe that the enemies of Jesus, who were there to make sure he died, were also mistaken. We also have to believe that after being flogged with whips that tore off his flesh, and being nailed to a cross, Jesus survived a spear thrust to the heart by a trained executioner. Even if he did survive, we must believe that a day or so later he was strong enough to push back a boulder that weighed several tons and stagger naked into the garden. Then his disciples, when they saw this shredded human being cried out, “It’s the resurrection! Let’s start a new religion!” Wouldn’t you have seen your broken, bloody friend who had somehow survived crucifixion and called for an ambulance?