Moderate and liberal Christians frequently want to prove the veracity of Christianity with appeals to complex philosophical and metaphysical formulations. Is this really necessary? I suggest that one can determine the probable veracity of Christianity fairly easily. Here it is:
Christianity is based on two primary claims:
1. The ancient Hebrew god Yahweh is the all-knowing, all powerful, perfect, good, Creator of the universe.
2. The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in first century Palestine is historical fact.
Prove either of these claims false and you have discredited the veracity of Christianity. In my many discussions with Christians, they will often attempt to prove one of these claims true by appealing to the other as evidence without ever giving any evidence for the second claim. This is poor logic. The Christian needs to prove both claims correct, independent of each other, to establish the veracity of the Christian religion. Christians cannot prove the existence of Yahweh by appealing to the Resurrection of Jesus if they have not first provided evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection without appealing to the existence of Yahweh. Without the existence of Yahweh, the resurrection of Jesus is very improbable. And without the Resurrection of Jesus, the probability of the existence of Yahweh comes down to proving the veracity of mostly vague, disputed, prophesy claims. The evidence for each of the two major claims of Christianity are very weak on their own.
So which is more probable based on the available evidence:
1. Yahweh exists and is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator
2. Yahweh is the invention of an ancient superstitious people.
Which is more probable based on the available evidence:
1. Jesus of Nazareth really was resurrected from the dead, an event never heard of before or since.
2. The claims of Jesus’ resurrection are based on visions, dreams, false sightings or other natural explanations for someone/someones believing they had seen a dead person alive again.
If you ask Christians to provide evidence for the two principle claims of Christianity WITHOUT presupposing the other argument is true, I believe that you can easily show that the probability of Christianity being true is very, very low.
Below is an example of moderate Christians immersing themselves in complex philosophical and metaphysical theories to prop up their very improbable supernatural belief system: