Begin here
1A
Survey the converging arguments
See how cosmological, moral, design, ontological, and other lines of reasoning contribute to a cumulative case rather than depending on a single proof.
A staged path through the case
Start with God, then move to the resurrection.
This guided page follows a common apologetic sequence: first consider the case for God’s existence, then examine the historical facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection, and finally compare the principal explanations.
Phase One
The existence of God
Start with the broad case, then move into a more detailed exploration of the arguments and their structure.
Use first
Foundational case
What this contributes
If God’s existence and ability to act are independently supported, a resurrection is no longer excluded before the historical evidence is considered.
If divine action is a live possibility, the argument can turn to the historical data and ask what explanation best accounts for it.
Phase Two
The resurrection case
Begin with the historical claims that need explanation, then compare the major accounts of those facts. Jesus’ claims and actions supply context for interpreting a resurrection as divine vindication, but they are not treated here as the starting point.
Use second
Historical argument
What this contributes
The minimal-facts method identifies the historical data that any adequate explanation must address before proposing which explanation is best.
Historical facts do not interpret themselves. Competing explanations must now be compared by the same standards.
Inference to the best explanation
Which account explains the evidence best?
Compare the principal naturalistic and resurrection hypotheses for explanatory scope, power, plausibility, fit, and other standard criteria.
Assessment
What follows?
What this contributes
The conclusion rests on comparative explanatory judgment—not on the historical facts alone and not on a prior commitment considered in isolation.