Rather than making up numbers and having a debate over Pascal's wager, I just say that something should not even be put on the table as possible if there is no evidence of its possibility.

This is a arguable but important methodical principle, in my honest opinion.Being wrong is not inconsistent with induction to the best explanation. The nice thing about science is that even if the theories and methods are improved, the main principle is that it is based of the conditions of possible experience. I do not see history of science as ever deviating from some verification principle. While theories may be construct a priori, their ultimate test is in experiment and the consistency with earlier experiences. This is different than speculating what it would be like we lived in a world where the biographies written of some ancient Jewish rabbi were true. The problem is that we do not live in that world.

I find it rather scary the lengths well-practiced believers will go in re-imagining their world according to biblical narratives. It is like seeing a person obsessed with horoscopes, who imagines secret powers between the stars and their lives. The same thing is with people who look up random bible passages for a sign. It often does not matter what they take as the personal interpretation of the passage they look up, for many will construct a predestination narrative after the fact, dedicating it all to their version of superman.

I admit there is weaknesses in the critique in regards to its reversibility. I mean that believers could construct a critique of their understanding of science which shows it to be just as groundless. There are some good arguments in Hume which show how induction lacks deductive grounds and that one should not use induction to prove induction.

This is not to say that I think the Christian perspective and the non-Christian perspective on the resurrection narratives are equal. I just think it is hard to show a well-conditioned believer to look outside their faith perspective and judge it with an empirical methodology. I do not expect them to do so, for it is hard for me to even begin to think like a believer.

The following is just a brief rant about my perspective on religion in my life:
I might have been raised by various protestant denominations but my mind never really understand something like a deity. It just lacked concreteness. God just seems to contradict what it means to exist. For me, to be is to have presence, and presence is spatio-temporal. TO be complex to to be made of simple parts. All complex things, as I understand them (and this of course is that flimsy a piori reasoning), are construct through time by addition of simple parts. God just was a bag of contradictions to my way of understanding the world. He was just a brainless thinker with ectoplasmic man-parts.

I also was very keen on hetrodoxy during my religious days and still in my post-religious days. I always thought that one should keep adding to the bible and that the trinity is too limiting. In my reasoning, the buring bush, the wrestler (Israel), and the black cloud all were manifestations of Yahweh so should be included as additions to the traditional trinity. Why have only three forms if you have an infinite