@ TGM

"P1: If the resurrection is true, Christianity should be considered true."

This is refuted by dexter's alien argument. He kindly supplied a scenario in which the resurrection could be true without supporting Christianity. Your, strawman argument, carries no weight whatsoever. While I admire your attempt to get on the offense, you simply cannot do that legitimately by telling the opposition what they must argue. Once again, please stop telling me what I ought to be arguing and attend to what I’m actually saying, which is simply this.

Several people witnessed an event with their own eyes. An event that you admit would have to be a singular event. You suggest the odds against it were 50 billion to 1. From a historical standpoint, as you agreed for the sake of argument, the evidence is compelling that this event occurred. That is precisely why the resurrection is a singular event, even if you do not accept Christianity. It only happened once with no opportunity for study or replication. It doesn’t matter if he was alien, divine, or if he just had some abnormality that allowed him to come back. The event itself cannot be replicated and is therefore not able to be assessed by science. Thus far I've cited two scientists (Gould and Berger) who agree with that. One is a theist and the other wasn't. Still you insist their assessment isn’t valid based apparently on the fact that your argument crumbles if it is. I agree with these two scientists about the nature of science and its neutrality on this issue.