Again, this is just assuming atheism and therefore arguing in a circle. Science can support the conclusion that the resurrection is naturally impossible - that it cannot be produced by only natural causes - but that says very little about whether it is impossible simpliciter (pardon the philosophical jargon).
You know, it’s funny, the article that I linked by the McGrews calls Hume out for doing exactly what you are doing here - claiming the argument for the resurrection is invalid by knocking down an entirely different claim, without showing any relevant analogy between the two.
How is the Bayesian analysis in the McGrews’ similar to your little bigfoot story? Precisely what inference do they make, or what premise do they assume, that makes their argument “poor reasoning?”
False. There’s more ways to assess the reliability of a historical document than comparing it to different accounts of the same event (are you seriously suggesting that we can only know something in history if it’s recorded in more than one account?!). Moreover, it’s false to claim, as you are doing, that the Gospels are entirely dependent on one another so that they can only represent one source. There is dependence between Synoptics, but only partial dependence.
I’m assuming you’re not referring to the obvious and irrelevant fact that we don’t have the original manuscripts, but instead to the idea that the Gospels are composed using earlier documents and/or traditions. Sure, where there is evidence for earlier tradition (e.g. common material between the synoptics) I see no problem with that - though I’m not aware of any scholars who would say that all four gospels are composed that way in their entirety. But this point is at best tangentially relevant to their reliability, because we can still assess that reliability for the documents as we have them. Merely copying from earlier sources does not make them unreliable - it can even make them more likely to be reliable, since the earlier sources were closer to the events!