Last time I argued that we should be opened minded about miracles. A natural response is, So what?
If miracles are possible, that doesn't mean they're common. That doesn't mean any of the miracles in the Bible really happened. It doesn't mean the Bible's trustworthy. So what does it matter?
Imagine you're trying to convince your child to eat her broccoli. You begin to try to explain how wholesome and nutritious broccoli is. But your child interrupts: "I'll listen to you, but first we have to agree to assume broccoli is poisonous."
A fair fight? Of course not.
That's how many skeptics want to approach the Bible: "Miracles are impossible. The supernatural doesn't exist. Now give me your evidence for this resurrection thing."
If miracles are off the table, no explanation for the resurrection is more ridiculous than an actual resurrection. However if miracles are possible — not assumed, just possible — naturalistic explanations for the resurrection (and related events) start to seem a bit far fetched. We just have to make sure the person we're talking to isn't starting from the wrong presuppositions.
Because if someone's willing to give the evidence a fair hearing, I think it'll win every time.