The movie gladiator was fictional. Commodus did not murder Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius made him co-emperor in 177, three years before his death. The two ruled together with equal status. They celebrated a joint triumph and Commodus became consul at the age of 15, making him the youngest consul there had been up to then. There were conspiracies against Commodus, after he became sole emperor,

but none involved a general. Maximus Decimius Meridius is a fictional character.

The depiction of gladiatorial combats uses the misconceptions promoted by movies about these combats. Initially, gladiators fought to the death when the fights were part of a funerary ritual imported to Rome. However, this changed when Julius Caesar turned the combats into public games. The missio ((the sparing of a defeated gladiator's life) became common practice. Refusals by Caligula and Claudius to spare popular but defeated gladiators made them unpopular. Skill was more important than bloodshed. Winning a combat without causing injury was a desirable skill and several gladiators were praised for never injuring anyone. Successful gladiators were seen as heroes and on their death memorials with inscriptions about their deed and glory were built. Gladiators became big business for trainers and owners, aspiring politicians or high ranking men. The professional trainers made a living out of gladiators and did not want to see them executed. Nevertheless, it was still a dangerous game and death rates were quite high.

Yes, for a number of reasons:

1. Christian apologist C S Lewis referred to the fact that God provides sufficient evidence for any and all who wish to believe -that is to seekers. Jesus Himself said, ''seek and you will find''.

2. To an increasing number of people throughout the world, belief in God proves costly since many Christians are coming to faith in God in countries where they are in a minority. In other words they are going against the trend of unbelief whereas in times past many people may have been what Richard Dawkins called ''cultural Christians'' i.e. Christian by cultural inheritance but not in substance or personal commitment. They thus do not do so lightly, nor without good evidence. In other words, these people are indeed finding evidence of God's existence, evidence which is being tested in the ''fires of persecution.'' Since belief in God proves costly or difficult for many of these people, such as those in either communist lands such as China, or Islamic nations (albeit in this case a different understanding of who God is) such as Indonesia or Iran, they do not take this step lightly.

3. The Bible itself refers to the evidence of and for Godin the creation in the book of Romans chapter 1. Certainly, these statements are even truer today (if that be possible) than when they were written, given the amazing details uncovered by modern science, even down to the microscopic level.While it is certainly true that many have lost their way and abandoned faith in God explicitly due to the philosophy of naturalism as expressed through the modern consensus around the theory of evolution.

4. It is also true that a number of prominent atheists, including former Atheist Antony Flew, have abandoned Atheism for belief in God, even Christianity. Flew himself came to a deistic kind of faith while others have professed Christianity. Such people obviously consider that there is indeed sufficient evidence for God's existence.Flew gave his reasons for belief in God as relating to scientific discoveries around the complexity of DNA which he saw as logically demanding a designer. Others have come to God for different reasons, but, as in former times down through history, there is undoubtedly enough evidence. Flew's book ("There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.") provides details of why he changed his mind. According to Flew this was based on three aspects of nature viz. 1. that it obeys certain laws (is orderly) 2. the existence of life 3. the existence of nature itself.While Flew answered the above question on sufficient evidence for the existence of God in the affirmative and gave his reasons for doing so - others find different arguments persuasive.

Answer

According to Christianity the one true God who exists has not just created space and time but acted in this arena and interacted in human history with real people. The Bible records much of the alleged historical interaction between God and humankind and is thus able to be judged on this basis.

People have found masses of evidence both from science and archaeology that the Bible is indeed a reliable historical document in details where it can be checked. Quite obviously God cannot be proved from this document but it's reliability has been vindicated so that what it says about God's existence and activity is also most likely to have happened.

This is also why many misotheists wish to discredit the Bible and spend a great deal of effort in an attempt to do so, since the reliable testimony of the Bible is very much in favor of God's existence.

Connected with this whole issue is the fact that many Bible accounts record actual eyewitness events where people have had dealings with God -the very direct dealings which people would demand as proof of God's existence in the present. Peter, in 2 Peter 1:16, 18 points out:

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty...And this voice which came from heaven we heard when we were with Him in the holy mount." (a reference to the Mount of Transfiguration).

Peter, and all other authors of the New Testament consistently demonstrate themselves to be reliable historians and witnesses both to God's existence and to what He did with and for them.

On Numbers

Some have suggested that counting numbers of believers and unbelievers proves God's existence or not. This is quite irrelevant to the case, just as it is to most scientific discoveries down through history which began as a minority view. The majority may be wrong. In any case, this argument only proves the Bible reliable, since the Bible, which speaks of God's existence states that many will fall away towards the end. So, many people not believing in God is thus, according to the Bible, a vindication of its prophetic accuracy - and its assertions about God Himself.

Answer:

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject is ultimately one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few:
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.
2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by nature, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient society ever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.