I want to repeat, for the second time in the thread, that the believer has no burden of showing that the Resurrection happened. The believer only has the burden of having reasons that he himself believes. These reasons needn’t be communicable. It is similar to the fact that – if you doubt that my wife loves me – I simply cannot show you all the evidence I have. Why? Because it consists of a set of experiences some of which are so subjective that they simply cannot be shared with another person.
I agree with VictoriousTruther that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I fail to see that kind of extraordinary evidence in the historical record. That’s not to say that I think the resurrection story is unremarkable. Lots of signs point to it being true. But none of these signs, in my estimation, provide proof to a skeptic. And I don’t think they’re supposed to. I believe that ultimately the power to believe in the resurrection does not arise from hard evidence, but from the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit, which is extraordinary evidence indeed.
Now if we want to talk about things like the design argument, there I think there is a much stronger secular case to be made that something like a God must exist. But that case would not even begin to prove that this God was the Christian God. And I think that’s good. If we start to create a religion where revelation is not needed, since we have physical evidence for everything, we stop depending on God for our daily bread.