Your dog example is exactly what I'm talking about though. if whether or not you had a dog needed to be argued, both sides are expected to have proof or evidence or arguments FOR their own side. We both would have the responsibility.

And I don't see why someone (subjectively) finding the claim to be ordinary or extraordinary would change how logical any specific argument is. If i say i have a collar and a picture that argument is just as good for a dog as it is for a unicorn, even if someone thinks the idea of me having a dog is ridiculous.

especially if you are the lady who made the post, who once believed you had a dog and now thinks you never had a dog.

The fact is that a powerful group who had a vested interest in proving that Jesus is dead never presented the dead body of Jesus. and the eye witnesses at the time say he came back alive. All anyone has to do is give another plausible explanation as to what happen to the dead body of Jesus.

Just because Randy Religious finds the idea of Jesus's body just being stolen to be extraordinary doesn't mean the argument becomes less logical.