If God exists then all gods are possible
If magic exists then Harry Potter is possible
If Diablo exists then it's possible to farm soj
That's a big IF.
Neither magic nor gods were proven to exist. You are starting your belief with x exists therefore y but you need to prove x first.
This is fallacious thinking.
Bible is not independent historical document it has some historical aspects. But it's mostly an instruction manual on how to kiss ass of an invisible entity.
Some poetry, prophetic nonsense, visions and occasional mention of events most of which are made up. Either outright magical, highly unlikely and a tiny few that are likely.
If you cannot prove all of them then the book cannot call itself truthful or Divine inspired. Unless you believe in a god that lies frequently but gaslights you into say otherwise.
We actually agree on one important point: if God does not exist, then the resurrection did not happen.
Where we disagree is your use of the word "prove." I don't claim God's existence has been proven with mathematical or scientific certainty. I believe it is supported by a cumulative case: philosophical arguments for a necessary first cause, the fine-tuning and intelligibility of the universe, objective moral values, and the historical evidence surrounding Jesus. Those arguments can be debated, but they are arguments—not blind assertions.
You haven't proven that God cannot exist either. You've concluded that based on your worldview that miracles do not occur. That's a philosophical position, not a scientific fact. Science studies repeatable natural phenomena; it cannot prove the universal statement that "no miracle has ever occurred."
You also said, "If God exists then all gods are possible." That doesn't logically follow. If the existence of one God were established, it would not make every religious claim true. Each religion still has to be evaluated on its own historical, philosophical, and textual merits. The existence of one explanation doesn't validate every competing explanation.
Your Harry Potter analogy has the same problem as the Spider-Man analogy. We know Harry Potter is fiction because its author presented it as fiction. The New Testament presents itself as recording real people, places, rulers, and events. That doesn't automatically make it true, but it makes it a historical claim that can be investigated rather than dismissed simply because it contains miracles.
Finally, your standard that every claim in the Bible must be proven before any claim can be accepted isn't how historians evaluate any ancient document. We don't throw out an entire source because some claims are debated. We examine each claim on its own evidence. That's how Roman histories, Egyptian records, and every other ancient source are treated.
So our disagreement isn't really about one miracle. It's about worldview. You begin by assuming miracles don't happen unless they can be scientifically demonstrated. I begin by asking whether God exists and then evaluate the historical evidence in light of that possibility. That's why we reach different conclusions—not because one of us is ignoring evidence, but because we interpret it through different philosophical starting points.