Oh dear, Skeptic, is this a serious discussion? Is this Habermas really claiming to the world leader in resurrection research and what does that mean? Well I suppose I had better add something to the discussion.
1. No one ought to take the gospels as, well, er.. , gospel without evidence that they are actually true. To start with, we have just texts which we don not know if we can trust.
2. How many texts do we have? Well, in principle we have four gospels and Paul's letters but let's look harder. Mark is the basis of Matthew and Luke and pretty likely John's account too. They are all written a long time after the event when, in al probability there were no witnesses. Immediately we are down to one source, Mark and Paul. Paul's account seems almost to have Jesus in heaven for most of the action - and Paul doesn't have much action. Paul wasn't a witness either but might have known the OT well enough to come up with the story from OT 'prophecies'. Indeed, the birth and death narratives of all the versions of the story could be constructed from OT passages without the need for any real event.
3. The texts we have have their own problems to do with inconsistency between them. Given the same story and given the Markan text was available to the authors, how come they couldn't come up with the same story with the same details such as who went to the tomb first and so on? We know that eye-witnesses often see things differently but we are not talking about eye-witnesses here but people writing up a set story. After two generations, why would the story be different unless each gospel writer is writing to a different audience and puts the local hero into the story as getting to the tomb first - in which case we are already into story writing and not reporting.
4. There is no corroboration of the stories due to the lack of any other record by any impartial author who witnesses the action. This is a problem for us with this story compared with stories about Socrates as the latter had not claim to fame apart from the writings he left us. We don't have to believe in Socrates to use his philosophical methods whereas Jesus can't save people who don't believe in him. Moreover, the gospels claim supernatural events took place and it seem incredible that with people rising from the dead. climbing out of their tombs or even children slaughtered in Bethlehem that no one would ever write anything down about it all. This lack does make the texts look a bit dubious.
5. So far as the resurrection is concerned, there are other explanations not considered. That Jesus came back to life is one explanation (though lack of other witnesses is remarkable) but another is familiar to bereavement counsellors - the bereaved quite commonly see the dead relative, maybe sat in their favourite chair on in a favourite place. perhaps just a couple of the disciples actually saw Jesus like. The story would spread like wildfire and over tow generation one can imagine the results - 500 saw Jesus at one time! The stories would proliferate but they would be a bit different in each chain of people telling the stories with details unsure and perhaps made up in the telling. This explanation would deal with the facts we know, the lack of impartial witnesses and the variation in the stories. This is more plausible, because it uses facts we are familiar with, than that a dead man actually came back to life because we know this never happens.
So, is that a reasonable argument against the 'Minimum Facts Argument?'