The Resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity

First of all, I did offer an alternate explanation. My alternate explanation is that the story is a myth, something that was made up. I myself already wrote step by step how the explanation that the story is false better fits the criteria of historicity than any other explanation. Now, that said, just because something doesn't meet the rigorous standards of historicity doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means that there isn't enough evidence for it to be considered history. It means that while it is unlikely that it ever happened, in all honesty, we don't really know. While science has not disproved the existence of the supernatural, it has not proven it either. It is outside our realm of knowledge, and is thus epistemically improbable. This places it outside the realm of historicity as it already fails the fourth and sixth steps of McCullagh's method when put up against the claim that the resurrection simply didn't happen. Since the resurrection relies on the supernatural, which is not known to exist, you create an ad hoc scenario which causes it to fail against the opposing hypothesis on the fifth step as well. Everything else crumbles after that, which I already explained in my first response. Also, no, I am not guilty of making an Ad Hominem or genetic fallacy, Gary Habermas as stated on his own website that he went to school to answer religious question. He has a P.H.D. In philosophical theology. Robert J. Miller has written plenty of religious books, but I can't find anything about this guy having a P.H.D. In anything to do with history, or anything for that matter. He certainly doesn't go by "Dr. Robert J. Miller". Neither of these guys are reputable historic scholars, and if they were real historic scholars, they would be the equivalent of the geologist who claims that the Earth is 2 miles thick. They are apologists, and like all apologists, bad ones, because they are defending a position that doesn't have any support. Apologists are only really effective when they try to explain one of their religion's many holes to someone who already believes, or wants to believe. Saying that the writings of believing disciples carries weight to historicity is like putting weight to the letter a mother who writes to the dean of a school saying that her son didn't steal another kid's lunch money. This is no fallacy, this is just sense. Now let me explain what the video I posted showed to hammer this point in. The video is a documentary that follows a cult in the middle of New Mexico. This cult has been run by a man for 20 years who claims to be the son of god. The followers of the cult are devoted to the leader, and treat him as if he is what he says he is. The leader takes advantage of the women sexually, and even the husbands of these women allow it because the cult leader just tells them to take it up with god who is ordering him to do it, not him. The husbands of these women actually believe that the cult leader is helping them through this! The cult leader even slept with girls who were under the age of consent(he is now in jail because of it). The leader of the cult predicted long ago when the cult first started that the world was going to end, and the documentary follows the cult in what they think are to be the end days. When the last day on Earth finally comes, absolutely nothing happens. Despite this, the followers of this messianic figure still cling to him, and delude themselves into thinking that the world actually ended. Even with their cult leader in jail, many of the followers STILL believe in him. What this demonstrates is that there is nothing special about the fanaticism of the early Christian church. Especially when you take into account that one of Jesus' failed prophecies was that the world was going to end before the generation living then had all passed away (Matthew 24). When you combine this message of a coming apocalypse with a mythical figure who rose from the dead and is able to bend the laws of nature at a whim, it doesn't seem too hard to believe that people would be dead serious about it. Hell, Paul always wrote his letters as if the end was coming soon. Now if you want to know who is making the logical fallacy here, it is you. Your whole position is basically an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Also known as an argument from ignorance. Which, in case you are unfamiliar, is the act of asserting a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false. You are demanding that I prove your argument false, when I do not have to at all. The burden of proof is strongly on you. You have already lost this debate, you have absolutely no case at all. I do not feel the need to continue.