Christianity is probably the one true religion.

I will address most if not all of what Con said in my rebuttal. This is my opening statement, so i'll just dive right in... The argument I will using is the Resurrection of Jesus. I will be using the argument formulated by Resurrection expert, Gary Habermas, which is known as the minimal facts argument. And the argument works like this... If the Bible is inspired, Jesus is raised from the dead. If the Bible is not inspired, but it's just reliable, Jesus is raised from the dead. If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you can still get the Resurrection, and Jesus is raised from the dead. So regardless of your view of the New Testament, Jesus is raised from the dead, which places skeptics in a dilemma. How this argument works is, we take skeptical data, because the majority of times skeptics, like Con will just go "ah, I don't believe anything". But if we take someone as skeptical as they are, but they are well trained in Biblical studies, I will take what the skeptical scholar accepts, concerning what happened to Jesus after his resurrection and his followers, I can prove the resurrection from the data that the skeptics accept. So there are 4 facts that the vast majority (we're talking 95-100%) of skeptical NT scholars accept (now just to be clear, I am not saying we should believe these facts just because the majority of scholars do, I am saying the evidence for these things is so great, which in turn is why the majority of scholars accept them as historical), but I will mention only 3 to save space: 1) Jesus' death by crucifixion. Evidence for it: All 4 Gospels of the NT report the crucifixion for us, as well as virtually every book in the NT. Not only the NT reports it, but a couple of Non-Christian sources report it: Josephus (A.D 37-100), a Jewish historian writes - "When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified" (Antiquities 18:63). Tacitus (A.D 56-117), Roman historian writes - Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius" (Annals 15.44) Even the Talmud states: "Yeshu was hanged on Passover Eve...he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy." (Tractate Sanhedrin 43a). So the Crucifixion is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, which is why Gerd L"demann writes, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." (Gerd L"demann, The Resurrection of Christ, p.50) 2) The earliest followers of Jesus had experiences, which they believed were appearances of the Risen Jesus This fact is agreed upon by the vast majority (98-99%) of NT scholars, most of whom are skeptical. The Apostle Paul, a man who knew the original apostles, testifies that the disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them, he does so in 1 Corinthians 15, when he writes "I gave you, what I was given" after which he goes on to list resurrection appearances to the disciples. Now Paul is not making this up, he is making it very clear that he received it from an earlier source. There is a virtual consensus among scholars that Paul is passing on tradition, which dates back to 35 A.D at the latest (5 years after the cross). And this creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) can easily be traced back to the apostles themselves. Not only Paul, but we have the testimony of Early Church Fathers about the beliefs on part of the disciples: Clement of Rome (30 A.D-100) - this man was a disciple of Peter, but he also learned from Paul, and many of the other eyewitnesses of the events of the life of Jesus, so he knew what the apostles were preaching, he writes in his letter to the Corinthians: "Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand." (Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 42) Polycarp (69 A.D-156) - this man like Clement interacted with many of Jesus' disciples, and was even appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John himself, he writes in his epistle to the Philippians: "Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles...they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered.they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us." (Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 9) Ignatius of Antioch (35 A.D-117) - this man was like the other 2, a personal student of the apostles, he studied mainly under the Apostle John, but it is possible that he was even ordained by Peter as Bishop of Antioch, he writes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans: He [Jesus] came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. "And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 3) I could give more evidence to prove that the disciples sincerely believed Jesus appeared to them, but I think this is sufficient enough, the evidence is conclusive and strong, which leads Gerd L"demann, an Atheist NT skeptic to write: "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." (Gerd L"demann, What Really Happened?, p. 80) 3) Jesus' tomb was found empty 3 days after his burial This fact, although not widely accepted among the vast majority of scholars, is still accepted by 75% of scholars (most of whom are skeptical) as historical. And there are good reasons to believe it: The empty tomb story is found in the earliest Christian traditions (the Pre-Markan passion narrative used by Mark and the allusion to the empty tomb in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7). The empty tomb story lacks signs of any legendary development (the Gospels don't record how Jesus rose, they just say that his tomb was found empty) The 1st witnesses to the empty tomb were women, which strongly suggests the authenticity of the account, and here is why - in 1st century Palestine, a women's testimony was considered to be useless, so it would've been self defeating to "invent the empty tomb story", yet have women as your first witnesses, any "invention" would've most certainly have had men as the 1st witnesses. Rather than the critics pointing to the occupied tomb, the earliest arguments against it was that the body was stolen (Matthew 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculius 30). There would have been absolutely no need to try to argue that the body was stolen if the tomb was occupied, the fact that the enemies of the Christians try to explain it away shows that the tomb was actually empty. Due to all this evidence in favor of the empty tomb, Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, states that "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." (Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, p. 49-50) The claims of the disciples that Jesus appeared to them itself doesn't prove that Jesus rose, if the disciples were hallucinating, then we would expect to find that the tomb was occupied, but in fact, all of our early evidence supports the conclusion of the empty tomb. The beliefs of the disciples combined with the empty tomb, provide a very strong case for the Resurrection. The best explanation for all these facts is that Jesus really rose from the dead, it explains why the disciples reported appearances, and why the tomb was empty very well. If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, I rest my case, Christianity is true, because Jesus left the tomb empty.