It's quite a shame you didn't tell me about this – I would have been more than happy to actually talk with you, and perhaps stopped you from going off tilting at windmills.

In regards to 'facts' – it is worth remembering that we are talking about 'historical "facts"' – there is much of history that is considered an historical fact, that is, it most likely happened, which cannot be repeated and tested as you seem to want to do for it to be considered 'fact' – we are not talking scientific facts, but historical facts. And remember with twitter there's limited space, it's easier to say 'facts' then have to elaborate every time with 'what most likely happened'.

But to windmills.. for example, you are confused: you seem to think that I'm arguing that

(5) the disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

means that the historians accept that the disciples saw the risen Jesus, but I am emphatically not arguing that. What it means is that historians agree that the disciples had some kind of experience which they claimed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. The historians agree they experienced something – not that is was necessarily Jesus, but they agree that whatever it was, the disciples claimed it was Jesus. Surely you can see the distinction there. Now that experience was not necessarily supernatural, which was the point I was arguing – if you were to argue that they were hallucinating, then that is not supernatural (whether that is a sufficient explanation is a different matter). Therefore, the event that historians agree most likely happened (i.e. what I shorthanded as historical 'fact') is not itself supernatural, even if one explanation might be. This is a distinction you have failed to make. Further, the 'minimal facts' (using Habermas' term) are those accepted not just by scholars who accept 'magic' (as you put it) but also by those who definitely reject the historicity of the resurrection itself. At no point did I say that the historians I referred to thought Jesus was 'magical'.

Seems strange that you ridicule me for my reference to Argument to Best Explanation and then go on to describe that process positively (and yes, I agree that we cannot say for certain, a point which I'm sure I had previously made with reference to 'most likely' for example) yet fail to actually apply to the historical data in this instance, instead just calling me names.. I suppose that's why you'd rather talk about me than too me, right?
It is not just a matter of saying 'it says it, ergo it happened' – it's a matter of looking at it, seeing that it is "most likely the case" that there was an empty tomb, people experiencing something they thought was an appearance, unlikely change of character, unlikely conversions, and the unlikely birth and growth of the church and asking how does one explain all of this with an explanation with enough scope and power as per AtBE. Any explanation of the empty tomb, for example, must also account for the alleged appearance and unlikely conversions. The 'swoon theory' for example is well out of fashion now, for the very reason that it fails to account for the known data about Jesus' execution and burial – it requires too much other ad hoc. Now you might very well find another explanation more persuasive and encompassing, but I'm yet to see one that to my mind fulfils the AtBE criteria sufficiently, let alone as well as the very earliest claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. Probably the real issue is that this explanation conflicts with philosophical assumptions of philsophical naturalism – that's the heart of the issue right there, and you know you'll get ready laughs from all those who not only share this assumption but assume that it's the only valid assumption.

Look, I don't expect you to find the argument persuasive, you've obviously got too much philosophical antagonism and personal baggage for that, and that's fine, no argument is ever going to be persuasive to everyone regardless of philosophical assumptions. If you're happy enough to just accept that all the things the historical consensus agree most likely took place are just made up, that's fine. If you want to be like N.T. Wright's Oxford tutor, who after reading Wright's magisterial book on the historical evidence said "I simply choose to believe that there must be some other explanation even though I don't know what it was." then that's really fine.. just please don't misrepresent what I'm actually saying in order to get a few cheap laughs. And if name-calling is all you've got to say to people who disagree with you (and that's no fallacy btw), then that's just very sad.

AronRa is so cool! 8)

Emus are hilarious.

As I recall from months ago, the amazingly round sinkhole was caused by a poorly-designed/maintained underground sewage/drainage/retention system eroding the ground around it and caving in. So it is due to the manmade component that it ends up looking unnatural. There are a number of these sinkholes in the area as things keep failing in more spots, and the residents are very worried about them as more appear.