[xzins]

Indeed, the whole point is supposed to be that you believe despite the lack of proof

That's not exactly accurate. There is plenty of evidence. I think it is overwhelming evidence. Evidence of history, of scripture/prophecy, evidence of reason, and evidence of changed lives.

It's weighty evidence; the type you'd see regarding any discussion of events that have transpired. Since you can't recreate ANY event in history, you are left with a different standard of evidence than with, for example, a proof in geometry.

Take an historic debate: Prove that George Washington Was a Christian. It really depends on what you mean by "prove", doesn't it?

[A_perfect_lady]

A yes. A “different standard of evidence.” You said a mouthful there, didntcha?