I will comment on this:
Take Jesus’ resurrection. Given how nature works, dead people stay that way.
Absent the intervention of a rational, omnipotent agent.
It didn’t have to be that way. Just as the freezing temperature of water might have been 34º F rather than 32º F, maybe one in ten dead could have “naturally” come back to life.
i) That's a bit too facile. In principle, the freezing point for water could be different. However, that's not a discrete variable. To change that would impact other things. To make everything balance out, there'd have to be corresponding changes. You can't just alter the freezing point of water and leave everything else unaffected. Other adjustments must be made to accommodate that particular change. And maybe there's not that much give in the system.
ii) Under what scenario does he think one in ten dead could "naturally" come back to life? How much necrosis has the body undergone?
But, water does freeze at 32º F, and dead people stay dead (barring unforeseen medical advances that certainly were not available 2000 years ago). That’s why, if Jesus really did return to life, something must have intervened to block the otherwise inevitable march of natural laws.
That's roughly true.
Back to miracles. Even granting the tremendous reliability of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, the case for accepting their account is very weak. How many people return from the dead? It must be very low, far less than the number of people who have the serious disease in our analogy. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God resurrects one in a billion people. This means that even if the witnesses to the resurrection were incredibly reliable (perhaps they misidentify non-miraculous events as miraculous only one in a million times), the chance that they were correct about Jesus’ resurrection would be only one in a thousand.
That frames the issue as if it's a roll of the dice. The natural odds. But if it happened, the Resurrection was the result of divine intervention. Not letting nature taking its course, but reversing nature. Circumventing nature.
It's like asking what are the odds of throwing sixes ten times in a row? Well, that depends. Are they fair dice or loaded dice?
Natural processes involve unintelligent causes–like a computer that's programmed to perform a task. It always does the same thing. Only does what it was programmed to do.
But the odds for what a computer will do–given the status quo–are very different from what a computer programmer will do. He can change the program. He can make the computer perform a different task.