Mike Fox said:
"just curious, what is your opinion on the purpose of and reasoning beind apologetics for the resurrection? do you think it is to convince non-believers that the resurrection is a scientifically valid historical fact? like i said, just curious. i've never been able to prove christianity to anyone, but i have seen people come to believe simply by hearing the gospel with no proof given."
God doesn't need to use something like an argument for Jesus' resurrection, but sometimes He does use such means (John 20:27-29). (On some common misunderstandings of John 20:29, see here.) The Bible frequently reasons with us in evidential categories, such as fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony.
Converting people isn't the only relevant objective. Something like the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection can also glorify God in His creation or demonstrate the corrupt nature of the unregenerate, for example.
But concerning conversions, William Craig wrote the following when challenged on this point in a debate:
"Even if few people become Christians as a direct result of an apologetic argument, such defenses do help to shape and preserve an intellectual milieu in which faith in the Jesus of the New Testament is still a rational alternative for most persons in our culture. And even in individual cases, it has not been my experience that so desperately few find apologetic arguments persuasive....Several students during the question-and-answer time [of a previous event] were quite hostile. It seemed that I had persuaded no one. But a letter I later received from Gabriel Ting, a staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ at the university, informed me that six people had decided to become Christians as a result of the talk. Again, I think of a couple of debates in which I participated at the University of Illinois. Mark Ashton, the local InterVarsity director, tells me that twenty students committed their lives to Christ at that time and that as many as forty more have joined investigative Bible studies geared to helping unbelievers learn more about Jesus Christ." (Paul Copan, ed., Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up? [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998], p. 178)
Craig says a lot more on the subject in the surrounding context. You can consult the book if you're interested in more of his thoughts and experiences on the matter.
He mentions people who were "quite hostile" after one of his events. That might be an example of what I referred to above, a demonstration of the corrupt nature of the unregenerate. For some other examples, listen to the audience question segment of Craig's 2004 debate with Hector Avalos.
Even when an unbeliever doesn't convert, he'll sometimes concede a point or acknowledge the reasonableness of the Christian position on an issue. When he was an atheist, Antony Flew commented on the evidence for the empty tomb, in an April 2000 debate with Gary Habermas:
"I don’t think you should be apologetic about this at all. These facts are facts and I could rather wish that in these topics more people were prepared to face facts rather than run away and say, 'Mustn’t say that.' No. This is a very impressive piece of argument, I think…Because, you know, it’s very difficult to get around this….Well, we have no independent witnesses. There are all sorts of ways of removing bodies. I’m not going to offer a theory because I simply don’t think one can reconstruct the story of what happened in the city and all that long ago and we haven’t got the sort of evidence that one might have today with the invention of cameras and all the rest of it….I don’t offer anything to cover the empty tomb evidence." ("Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" [Chattanooga, TN: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2000], pp. 17-18)
As a deist, Flew commented:
"The evidence for the resurrection [of Jesus] is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events." (interview with Gary Habermas)
I don't know what you mean by "scientifically valid historical fact", but historians make judgments based on probability. Something like a certainty or a 99% probability would be preferable, but a preference isn't a necessity.
We should be ready with an answer (1 Peter 3:15), but we should realize that God can accomplish His ends without our answers. Be familiar with God's word (Romans 10:17), and realize that God can use means other than your argumentation, but also be prepared to reason with people in evidential categories like fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony, as the Bible does. God is sovereign over history, not just hearts. His actions in history can leave traces in the historical record, as other events do.