List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Simon Moon]

We know the Big Bang caused the birth of the universe when a small singularity expanded into the cosmos as we know them today.

Not so.

The universe could have always existed in another form (singularity). All we know if that the BB caused the universe to expand into its present state.

2. The life and death of Jesus. (There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed as a Jewish man from the Middle East when the Romans were in rule, and that He was crucified by one of the Roman leaders of the time - Punctious Pilot.)

The evidence is not quite as strong as you are claiming. But, yes, it is likely that Jesus is based on some historical figure (or figures). But so what? The fact that he probably existed as real person provides zero evidence for any of the supernatural god claims attributed to him.

The people back then lived in a milieu where many people and events had supernatural connotations. It is not unusual for god/men to emerge from that environment.

3. The rapid fire spread of early Christianity during a time when there was no easy transportation or communication technologies. I feel some extraordinary things must have happened for so many people to be so convinced so quickly.

Until Constantine, it actually did not spread as fast as many believe. It took a conquering soldier to spread it.

If it wasn't for Constantine, you would most likely be a Zoroastrian, and I'd still be an atheist.

4. Jesus' close friends who actually lived with him were SO convinced that He was the real deal and not some fraud, that they ALL voluntarily died horrible painful deaths for Him... when they could have just denounced Him and went on with their lives. 

This is going to be a bit long:


Peter: Although Peter’s death is vaguely alluded to in some parts of the New Testament (e.g. John 21:18; 2 Peter 1:13-15), the actual scene and manner of his death is nowhere to be found within it. Instead, the legendary account of saint Peter being crucified upside down in Rome is first recorded possibly over a century later in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 150 – 200 CE). Modern scholars have doubts that Peter ever even went to Rome (seeing as Paul makes no mention of Peter being there in his Epistle to the Romans, even though tradition claims that Peter traveled there first, and the fact that Peter allegedly founding the church at Rome would serve as propaganda for the leadership of the city’s congregation). The Acts of Peter also includes events such as Peter causing a dog to speak human language, raising a smoked tuna fish from the dead, and battling a magical flying magician named Simon. Apologists quote mine one of the four events above to bolster their arguments. Guess which one it is?

Andrew (Peter’s Brother): After Paul and Peter, the New Testament says even less about the other apostles and many of the later apocryphal accounts of their deaths become even further distant and less reliable (yes, I know that is hard to believe). For one, the Acts of Andrew (c. 150 – 200 CE) records that he was crucified in the Achaean city of Patras. This account is written possibly over a century later, but it could be believable, right? Well, if you also believe the first couple paragraphs of the Acts of Andrew, where Andrew cures a blind man, raises a boy from the dead, and magically summons an earthquake to kill a woman who was trying to have sex with her own son (rather than just killing the woman directly). Andrew later magically heals everyone else who was hurt by the collateral damage of this magical earthquake.

James the son of Zebedee: Here is the grand and detailed narrative of his valiant death:

“It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.” (Acts 12:1-2)

Surely he was killed because Herod Agrippa and his men, like Orwellian thought police, hunted down James to force him to deny what he knew about the truth of the resurrection! Um, it doesn’t say that. Surely James was tortured and given many opportunities to admit the resurrection was false and be spared, but he confessed its truth each time! Um, nothing about that either. Instead we just have a brief sentence with no details at all about the specifics of James’ death. Later in the chapter an angel appears and helps Peter magically escape from prison, despite being guarded by four squads of soldiers. So magic still surrounds this brief and factually sounding reference. James’ unspecific death, not even a martyrdom since there is no indication that he could have avoided the death, is the best apologists have to offer in this argument…


Matthew: What became of the former tax collector? Well, traditionally he ministered to the Hebrews and wrote a gospel in Aramaic (though the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek). However, he is also said to have journeyed to Ethiopia (not in Africa, but south of the Caspian Sea), in order to spread the good news (other places he is rumored to have visited are Parthia, Macedonia, and Syria). Even modern Christian sources acknowledge the dubious nature of his death. The Catholic Encyclopedia (“St. Matthew”) writes, “Of Matthew’s subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data … There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew’s martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded.” Well, at least two traditions have to be false, or more likely all three are.

Most of the rest of the disciples' deaths are equally dubious.

Should I keep going?

5. Morality. With that, I will quote points 1-4 from KingPin back when he was still active here: 

...To me, the notion of objective moral laws means there has to be a law giver. I know this doesn't particularly point to the Christian God, but at least it points to one who cares/is involved, which helps support why I believe in more than just Deism.

There are very well described moral systems, that can be said to be objective (based on the physical attributes of the universe, and well being), that require zero gods.

6. There have been multiple things that have happened which I think cannot be explained by science. To me, the most convincing is the miracle of the sun in Fatima. 

Long ago refuted.

But since when does 'not explained by science' ever mean that some supernatural explanation becomes the best?

7. Finally, and most convincing for me personally is that I myself was witness to one of these inexplicable things. I've made it clear before that I don't want to tell the story here because it is sacred to me and I don't want to open it up to ridicule. But something happened in my childhood house in 2006 (I was 20) that both myself and my mother were present for. And because of what it was and what was involved, I can tell you that it was directly related to Christianity.

...And that concludes my "list". The important thing to remember is that it wasn't any one of these things that convinces me. It's all of them together. When I put these all together, it makes logical sense to me that the Christian God is real. And while I know that none of this is "proof", all of these things compiled together serves as sufficient evidence for me to believe that it is more likely that He exists than to believe that He doesn't.

Sure, I can go interview 1000's of people that claim to have witnessed all sorts of supernatural events related to their, different, religions. How convinced would you be that the 'supernatural' events that they witnessed lead to their religion being true?