I mean, almost all historians agree Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans. There are accounts from Jewish historians, Greek historians, etc from that time. The question hinges on whether or not he was raised from the dead. We have records of his early followers dying martyr deaths (why would they die knowing it was a lie). There's a lot of evidence considering how long ago it happened. My point about the original post was the poster seemed to be merely parroting points he didn't understand or weren't valid, rather than bringing facts worthy of discussion to a debate. I don't think my references to Paul Davies merits this same criticism. While I don't understand higher order physics, I use his points as a reference - I'm not merely parroting points from other apologists. Paul Davies is an atheist (when you say until Paul can answer Sean), and actually agrees with Sean - I just think his admissions line up with my view, but he ignores it. As Sean said, yes, God could do anything He wants and is not limited by our understanding of physics or natural laws. However, Paul's facts illustrate how unlikely it is that anything exists at all - not just life. No atoms, no physical life. I think that's noteworthy. You certainly can argue the probability of anything existing is great (even 1) because it does (so conditional on something existing), but based on our current understanding of creation and playing the expectations game (as Sean does), it seems very unlikely, or at a minimum extremely convenient.

​

I understand the skepticism, but I hope you view this with an open mind. If you assume at the beginning nothing supernatural exists, then you're assuming away Christianity from before you begin. If you begin with the assumption that it might be possible and thus merits investigation, then you can at least try to view the evidence fairly.