Ding:
One piece of evidence is the existence of the universe. If the atheistic hypothesis is correct, why does anything exist at all instead of nothing?
well, as i see it you ask us to explain how you can get something from nothing. good question! my intuition tell me you cant.
Just keep in mind the religious explanation goes something like: "assuming there never was nothing (god), then we can explain why there is something"... why is that a safe assumption? why is that a good explanation? if it is not an assumption but a logical implication, why does the implication point to god and not "not nothing"?
The Big Bang was then a massive explosion that occurred apart from the physical laws of our current universe yet produced the incredible order we see.
big bang is a description of a particular phase in our universe. we do not know what happened before the big bang. why is "we do not know what happened" not the most logical conclusion one can draw? if one arrive a different conclusion, why is it safe to assume the existence of an endless source of order and complexity, to explain why there is complexity and order?
These facts indicate to me that the atheistic hypothesis actually requires more faith than the theistic one.
i think i have shown that is false.
There is also the issue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If in fact it happened, it authenticates the existence of God and the teachings and claims of Jesus.
i agree.
The disciples were in a position to know (not guess) whether this actually occurred or whether they made the story up.
agree!
They went to horrific deaths without recanting their testimony.
what are the historical sources of their testimony? have other people died for prophets during the history?
This is just a very short and much simplified version of a couple of arguments that have been made over the millennia. You don't have to accept them, of course, but they are not irrational.
I agree with the last point, but i dont think they are very good.