I agree with Dr. RI and appreciate that he took the time to make such a detailed post on this matter.
I would like to add one thing: the strength of the above evidence is dependent upon how intrinsically probable or improbable you believe miracles are. Some people, like David Hume, basically take the position that any natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is more likely than a miracle. However, if there are independent reasons to believe there is an omnipotent God that by definition can perform miracles, then the evidence for the resurrection is much more powerful.
While there are many arguments for the existence of God, I think Aquinas's first 3 ways are the most compelling. These are considered cosmological arguments and argue that an unconditioned, non-contingent reality with the divine attributes is necessary to ground the continuing existence of our universe as well as the change and cause/effect that takes place within it. I would encourage people to research more into it -
this is a good *introduction* to these kinds of arguments.