I'm really interested in the law. I recently graduated law school and I'm about to sit for the bar exam, so I wanted to theme my website around a trial or a legal proceeding.
I want to start with the standard of proof. Different circumstances require different standards of proof. For example, at a criminal trial, the accused has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial (for example, a slip and fall case) you only need to say that the defendant is liable by a preponderance of the evidence, which basically means "more likely than not." The first standard is obviously harder to meet, since a criminal trial is a more serious matter than a civil trial. My argument is going to be that the level of proof you require will have an impact on what kind of proof you'll except.
Many atheists I've met say something like this: "When God comes down out of the sky and tells me that he exists and then performs a miracle to prove it, I'll believe." Now, that's an incredibly high standard of proof, but what they're getting at is that they want God's existence to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My argument is that God's existence can be proven to this standard in a more indirect manner.
Then I want to go over evidence that points to the veracity of the Bible and Christian teachings. Atheists often deride the Bible as a product of "barely literate 1st century farmers", so I will adopt that premise as the opposing side. Every trial has a theory of the case, and I will use that for the defense's side of the case.
The question is, at the end of the trial (e.g. when you're done reading the articles), are you convinced that Christianity is a divinely inspired religion, or are you convinced that it was just a product of 1st century barely literate farmers?
I intend to present evidence that shows that the Bible has a wisdom beyond the knowledge of simple farmers and peasants. I will point to prophecies that came to be and scientifically correct passages of the Bible as evidence that the writers of the Bible were certainly not ignorant peasants. Obviously, just one could be a fluke, but I want to show that the large number of correct prophetical and scientific statements do not fit with the theory that the Bible was written by people who were not divinely inspired.
I want to talk a little bit about circumstantial evidence as well. For example, if Jesus did not commit these very public miracles, then how could he get thousands and thousands of people to follow him? Successful cult leaders like L. Ron Hubbard claim extraordinary accomplishments, but these were not done in the public eye to hide their veracity. But in the case of Jesus, his miracles were very public and well-known. This makes them easily disproven. I also intend to talk about how the critics of his day attributed his actions to sorcery. They could have easily denied him as a fabricator, but they could not since his actions were so public and well-known.
Finally, I want to rebut evidence that suggests the Bible is scientifically incorrect.
At the end, I'm going to ask readers to consider what they've heard and then decide which side of the argument they believe.
Does anyone have any thoughts or advice for me on this?
Thank you.
