So if they spoke about the same sightings they would be seen as not independent and thus not trustworthy, but if they don't speak about the same sightings we shouldn't trust them because they don't corroborate each other. Is that what you mean?
"Independent" doesn't mean talking about different sightings, it means having different original sources. What you want is two or more people talking about the same event but either being eye witnesses or sourcing the material ultimately from different eye witnesses.
Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are.
No I am correct.
You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.
But you having an opinion does not mean you know who the authors are.
I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort.
So what?
You have an account of a man rising from the dead. So what?
Why do you think the examples are comparable in any sensible manner?
They both talk about fantastical events that violate the known laws of nature.
I do not need to show that God exists to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. What I try to do is show that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that tomb was empty a couple of days later and that individuals and groups were convinced they met, spoke and sometimes ate with him afterwards. The best explanation of that is that he was indeed dead on the Friday and alive the Sunday onwards. What is the best explanation for that? That he was raised by God, as he had predicted. In order to be raised by God, God has to exist.
But you fail to show that the events are as you claim. You show that we have stories describing some events, but you fail to show that the events they describe were real.
Furthermore, your assessment that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those stories rests entirely on the assumption that God exists. Without God and with the known laws of the Universe, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is vanishingly small.
Even furthermore, once you assume God exists and interferes with the World, all arguments based on probability (which is to say all arguments about the real Word) are rendered null and void.
You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning. Induction is inferring conclusions from observations. For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing. Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.
This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes. There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.
Why?
Perhaps an example would help. If I toss a fair coin ten times, what is the probability that it will come up heads each time? It's 1/1024.
Now suppose that I have a telekinetic ability so that I can nudge the coin imperceptibly as it is spinning in the air and make it land on whichever side I please. What is the probability of it coming up heads each time? Can you even answer the question?
