The only skeptical person was essentially the lead. All experts and points of view he meet and interview are believers.

The movie builds the case primarily upon so-called eye witnesses of the Christ resurrection, and our hero then proves that no human could have survived the described crucifixion.... ergo; Christ must be super natural. Ergo Christianity is right.... this is his line of evidence. In any usual progression of knowledge, this is just a silly approach.

Our hero first aimed to prove that Christ did not die on the cross, and therefore it could not be an actual resurrection that was witnessed a few days later... only woke up after a hard night out, I guess. But as he progresses in his "research", he finds that Christ (or any human) could not have survived what apparently had happened on the cross, and so when witnessed later, he must have returned from death... This is his body of evidence, this is his conclusion...that is it... and he then jumps to the believe that all of Christianity etc. must then be truth. Impossible for a skeptical and scientific thinking mind to make this stretch, and to get to this conclusion in that way. Silly.

His way of thinking can also prove that since no known aircraft can fly like UFO sightings claim they fly, UFO's are real? Same stretch. Same silliness.

One CANNOT come to this or any other conclusion here or in the UFO example. The only "conclusion" they can reach is that perhaps something extraordinary occurred and so deserves attention and further inquiry. And then hopefully this attention will substantiate the anecdotes with evidence and data to support them.

In truth, all he can ever hope for - even with the best of efforts - when analyzing eye witnessed events thousand of years ago about something unnatural and extraordinary, is to end up in a dead-end situation where he has to make a choice: Does he believe in those witnesses or not?

And so the premise of this movie is fundamentally flawed or silly, because he can only ever end the exact same place he starts. It is a battle of opinions, unsubstantiated. The actual case for Christ is inherently impossible. Of course it is, this is why Religion is still relevant. It cannot be proved and so cannot be disproved.

With his collected body of evidence and as a Skeptic and scientific thinking mind, he will firstly never be able to conclude anything above his own suspicion and secondly cannot abide to a suspicion that is not rooted in logic and supported by the current scientific knowledge of how the world works... since he does conclude erroneously, he is no Skeptic. He cannot be. The movie is an oxymoron. Or at best, a dishonest tale on how he became a Christian.

The story is a wasted opportunity to really go the whole nine yards. Guess it did not because then it would have come to another conclusion?

Or

Perhaps I misunderstood the story.

Perhaps it is really about a reasonable guy who is afraid of losing his wife and kid to a religion and then does what he can to convince himself to join them on their path, however silly it may seem to him at first. This would explain his biased and one-sided naive approach to the case for Christ.