The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

Ok fine, I'll play it your way, since I have nothing else to do in this debate. You clearly think that two thousand year old stories are more reliable as evidence than the consistency of mathematics. For some reason, this point is not getting across to many people, so I'll change tactics a bit. Right, your 5 facts: 1. 'Jesus was indeed crucified and buried...' More accurately, Jesus was probably crucified and buried. There is not enough evidence for us to be certain, but it is likely. This is not evidence that the resurrection occurred, so I am confused as to why my opponent would mention it. This may have happened, but it does not suggest in the slightest that the resurrection did. 2. 'Jesus' disciples believed that he rose from the dead...' Well so what if they believed it? People throughout history have believed many things, it doesn't mean they're true. There are several options available here: 1. The story is not true i.e. it was contrived. (this does not contradict science) 2. Jesus did not die in the first place. (this does not contradict science) 3. The disciples were honestly mistaken i.e. they believed they did see Jesus, although it may have been someone imposing as him, or any other reason why this may be so. (this does not contradict science) 4. The resurrection did occur. (this does contradict science). There are many explanations that do not contradict science, but you choose to believe the one that does. You may think these other options are not likely, but they are statistically more likely than a violation of science (by a long, long way). There comes a point when one must ask 'is this reasonable? Is it rational to think this, in all objective honesty?' If a resurrection was claimed today, how many people do you think would believe it? Even if there was considerably more evidence, 'these thinks don't happen to us.' It's okay to believe it happens two thousand years ago, but for it to happen today would be impossible. This is obviously nonsense. There is no reason why a resurrection would be more likely to occur when technology is not advanced enough to record it. It's worth noting that resurrections, ascensions to heaven etc don't happen anymore. Why is that? (It is also worth noting that the resurrection, as well as every single other miracle in the Bible, can be found in a religion that preceded Christianity, which undermines the Bible's integrity). 3.'Paul, who was an enemy of the church, suddenly changed...' If this is true, then there could be many reasons for this. People have changed their minds before, it is a common thing. This may be a major change of mind, but it certainly is not irrefutable evidence that the laws of physics can be violated. 4.'James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed...' This is the same argument as 3, so I won't bother repeating myself. 5. 'The tomb was found empty....' What does this prove? Nothing. If only 3 in 4 scholars believe it to be true, then it's hardly unequivocal. In any case, there are rational reasons that could be applied. The body could have been moved from the tomb, for example. Jesus magically coming alive is not the most rational reason, because it contradicts science. None of these facts come close to proving that mathematics can be inconsistent. I'm concerned that most people in the comment section (and indeed my opponent) do not understand the implications of the point I'm making. I shall explain it further, for the benefit of those who are not knowledgeable of science and mathematics. In the words of the admired philosophy writer Mel Thompson, 'We know nothing with absolute certainty, except those things that are true my definition.' The consistency of mathematics is one of those things: it is true by definition. But what does this mean? What does it mean to say that the consistency of mathematics is true by definition? I shall explain: We don't need to acquire any empirical evidence for us to be certain that 2+2=4. This is an analytic statement. The left hand side of the equation and the right hand side are the same thing, expressed in different language. 2+2=4 is true by definition, in the same way that 4=4 is true by definition. The fascination thing about mathematics, which those of you who have studied it will understand, is that it all fits together. It all works perfectly without any contradiction. Many, vast myriad applications of mathematics are known to us, from pure algebra (calculus, trigonometry etc) to science, and every single application works without affecting any other aspect of mathematics. None of mathematics would work if it was not consistent. Indeed, the only reason mathematics does work is because it is consistent. You may be wondering why the consistency of mathematics is so important in a debate concerning the resurrection. The resurrection is not only a historic claim, it is a scientific claim (indeed, god is a scientific claim). It is a scientific claim because if involved direct violation of science. The world around us only exists because the laws of physics are consistent. Just like mathematics, if the laws of physics were not consistent, the world as it is could not exist. I'm not sure it means anything at all to say that any world could exist where the laws of physics were not consistent. It would lead to paradoxes; impossible situation. And impossible situation (again, by definition (and therefore we can know with certainty)) are impossible. The laws of physics are entirely mathematical; a violation of physics would (by definition) lead to a violation of mathematics, which is impossible (by definition). What I have done here is shown that it is impossible for the resurrection to have occurred, and it is impossible by definition. My opponent (rather desperately, it appears) decides to scrape the bottom of the barrel and claim that supernatural effects were responsible. How can you (indeed, how can anybody) justify this? I would love to be presented with unequivocal evidence of anything supernatural. This argument is a terrible one because it relieves one of any responsibility of explanation. It was magic, and I, as a mere human, cannot possible comment on it. This is not an argument, it is an excuse. An excuse for those who are not capable of explaining, or, more to the point, refuse to accept the logical explanation. As I hope readers are aware, if my opponent is claiming supernatural responsibility, then the burden of proof is on him to do this. He must prove that anything supernatural is possible. Not by quoting texts; they have nothing to do with science, but by demonstrating that anything supernatural is possible (they must be logically and mathematically possible, as these things are true by definition alone, and not by any other reason). A contradiction appears almost instantly! People claiming supernatural responsibility are faced with a problem; what they are arguing against (the consistency of mathematics, in this case) is ONLY true by virtue of its own nature. The reason the universe is consistent is because it must be, per se. I'd like to see an argument against this. Although my opponent and I have approached this problem from very different angles, our respective evidence is of different degrees of certainty. Ancient texts may be convincing evidence for some things, but the consistency of the laws of nature is far more convincing; there is more evidence that the laws of physics are consistent than there is that the resurrection occurred. I have been asked to offer an alternative explanation, but why? This would not help my argument. It would be irrelevant. I have offered in my explaining some possible explanations. I do not think there is enough evidence for any particular explanation over any other, but I am quite certain that the true explanation is one that does not undermine the whole of science and mathematics.