The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

I think you're missing my point. My point is it doesn't matter what happened on Easter morning; it doesn't matter which texts say which things about the resurrection. So what if James was convinced. So what if the tomb was empty (there is not even consensus on this) It does not matter. This debate does not concern the details of these events (whether or not they occurred), it concerns the truth of the resurrection. We cannot conclude that the laws of physics have been violated from these; we would need a huge amount of evidence to justify such a massive claim, and a few ancient texts is nowhere near enough. I am saying that the resurrection defies the laws of physics and therefore cannot have happened. I'll explain further: My opponent asks how I KNOW the laws of physics have never been violated. That's the same as asking how I KNOW that 2+2=4. It's an analytic statement; it's true by definition. The laws of physics are LAWS. Just like mathematics, they must be exactly correct at all times for the universe to be as we see it. How could you justify saying they were broken temporarily at one point in the universe because Jesus wanted them to be because of what some ancient writings say? The laws of physics are mathematical. Every aspect of this universe is the way it is because of mathematics. One thing that is certainly true of mathematics is that it is consistent. Always. It has to be by definition. Mathematics could not work of it was not consistent. As the laws of physics are mathematical laws, they must be consistent. There is no possible situation in which mathematics is not consistent and therefore the laws of physics must always be consistent. Ergo, the laws of physics cannot be violated. What more can I say? Some people may find the stories you quotes convincing. But what is far more certain, per se, is that the laws of physics cannot be violated. There is far more evidence for this than there could ever be for the resurrection. 'I believe I so have such evidence.' You think an ancient mystery is enough to prove the inconsistency of mathematics? You're evidence is not strong enough. 'both sides are to put forth arguments evidence and theories that best explain the facts.' Again, you are missing the point. I am not trying to put forward a theory (and this subject of this debate does not require me to), what I am doing is dismissing yours. You are the only one putting forward a theory, so the burden of proof is on you too prove it and not on me to disprove it. I have backed up my problems with your theory using reason, so I have done what is necessary. You keep asking me to engage more with the history, but there's nothing intelligent to be said. If something isn't possible, then it can't have happened, regardless of how convincing details may be. I refuse to offer an explanation because this debate is not about what happened after the crucifixion, it's about whether the resurrection occurred and I have provided sufficient evidence to refute it. That's all that needs to be done. Whatever really did happen is not within the scope of this debate. It makes no difference to the point I am making.