Hmm. The lovely Thomas story isn't true, of course, as dead people drained of all their blood can't come back to life, but it does at least illustrate that asking for evidence is perfectly valid. Sticking his fingers into Jesus's various orifices must have seemed quite convincing, but, as the laws of nature had clearly been breached, had I been Tom I'd have still been looking for an alternative explanation. Let's try putting two possibilities side by side (I've made the second one up):

1. Jesus, his traumatised body bled dry (a soldier had stabbed him in the side, just to make sure), had died nailed to a cross. A couple of days later, he was back to life, walking, talking and handing out more good advice.

2. Jesus was in fact one of a pair of identical twins, the other chap having been kept hidden since birth for 33 years. After the real Jesus had snuffed it, he was brought out of hiding and paid a considerable sum to have himself authentically mutilated. After a thorough briefing by Jesus's old mates, he emerged to make a very good fist of impersonating the real McCoy.

Now suppose you were forced to believe that one of these stories was true (a lie, of course, as they're both egregiously false). Which one would you choose? The extremely unlikely scenario of the twin brother, which at least managed not to break any laws of nature, or the one that requires an unprecedented miracle to restore a battered two-day-old corpse back to vigorous life? Take yer pick: it's a choice between faith and reason, isn't it, and I know which one I'd choose. Only if forced to at knife-point, of course.