scientific evidence for god
The biblical claims about the divinity and resurrection of Jesus only violate common-sense when viewed from the lens of materialism (which says that only the world of material things is real). But materialism is a scientifically unsupportable stance.
Atheistic reasoning which judges belief in God to be a “primitive superstition superseded by science” fails to understand the nature and limitations of scientific knowledge.
The person who disbelieves in God can only do so from the vantage point of some other belief which precedes and therefore underlies scientific inquiry…not from the vantage point of a “skeptical“ lack of any belief. Atheists are “skeptical” of Christianity (etc.), but are very rarely skeptical of the scientifically and philosophically unsupportable belief system that is alternately referred to as materialism or naturalism. When it comes to materialism/naturalism, Christians (and other theists) are the skeptics, and atheists are the true believers.
Atheistic reasoning often suggests that “science explains things without the need for God.” But such a suggestion is what is known in philosophical terms as a “category error.” Science describes things in terms of natural laws, but does not explain where natural laws come from or how they are enforced.
According to atheist reasoning, God is just an imaginary entity used to fill in gaps in current scientific understanding. Eventually (argue atheists), all of these gaps will be filled with scientific explanations that cite natural mechanisms…and there will be no more gaps in which to put God. But this reasoning fails to address the question of WHERE NATURAL MECHANISMS COME FROM, and therefore confuses science with ontology (the branch of philosophy which addresses the nature of being, existence, or reality).
Atheists have been very successful in duping the general public into believing that the question of God’s existence amounts to a debate between science and religion. But the God debate is a conflict of religion versus religion, or philosophy versus philosophy…not of science versus religion. “The so called warfare between science and religion,” writes the eminent historian Jacques Barzun, should actually “be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths.”