Computer and statistical analysis in peer reviewed scientific and statistical journals of the original Hebrew Old Testament shows it could not have been written by man, and is intricately put together with multiple layers of content.
Our mission is not to prove Christianity for it is impossible to prove any worldview; our mission is to show Chrisianity is reasonable and the most likely explanation for the world in which we life
While there is always uncertainty this side of eternity, we can make reasonable assumptions using abductive reasoning - the "inference to the best explanation"
Christianity is the best explanation for the scientific understanding achieved over the last century
Discuss latest findings concerning the creation of life on Earth, and that life could not arise by chance.
Christianity and its understanding of the orderly nature of creation led to the scientific method and advancement of science primarily in Christian nations.
A massive explosion leading to the creation of our extremely ordered universe is impossible according to some of the greatest non-theist cosmologists, and yet it happened. There is no provable natural explanation possible.
Pascal (1623 - 1662) was a child math prodigy who made numerous contributions to physics and mathematics. He invented a mechanical calculator to help his tax-collector father in his business, and would also invent the wristwatch, hydraulic lift, the syringe, and numerous mathematical proofs while inventing the field of probability. He grew up in the "Age of Reason" but believed reason and science alone could not lead to God; only through experiencing Christ can people come to know God.
Pascal believed that while Reason alone could not lead to God, it was reasonable than not to believe that God might exist, and that is was important to build a relationship with him.
The wager starts by assuming an individual can choose to believe in God or not. This choice is mandatory; to decide not to believe is to choose he does not exist.
The wise person might believe in God, do good works, and generally stay out of trouble; if there is no God then he has led a virtuous life and loses nothing at death, but if there is a God he inherits eternal life and gains everything.
The foolish person might reject belief in God and live his life accordingly; if there is a God then he loses everything at death and suffers for eternity; if there is no God then he loses nothing
Therefore, it is wiser to believe in God (or at least look for him) than not - particularly if believe in God is reasonable. The wise person can gain everything and has nothing to lose if he is wrong, while the foolish person can gain nothing and has everything to lose if he is wrong.
We show that belief in God is at least "reasonable."
Pascal's Wager text from "Les Pensees"
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.