I find Ahmed's opening statement to be one of the finest examples I have heard on why it is logically problematic to argue for the supernatural with evidence (which is by nature naturalistic). Habermas is a super nice guy. I know from listening to other debates that he is quite smart and knows his Bible quite well, however Ahmed's opening statement leaves him with little ground to stand on. He must allude back to more general theistic arguments, trying to defend the idea of the existence of an "evidence-granting" God by referencing near-death experiences. Habermas is more accustomed to arguing for the historical, physical nature of the resurrection by making claims like "75% of scholars believe in the empty tomb", etc. Ahmed's points make that difficult to defend as reason enough for believing that "a body can pass through solid rock" (as the resurrected Jesus reportedly does in the book of John).
Both men are nice and respectful of each other, and the whole debate is quite interesting, even if the rug is pulled out from under Habermas right at the beginning. Perhaps there are decent points to be made for the possibility of the "supernatural" (or at least "natural beyond our ability to comprehend") - but presenting naturalistic evidence, which is connected causally to all things, to "prove" a supernatural intervention, which is not necessarily connected to anything, is tough business. All one can do is to show a gap in our current understanding and then speculate a solution. Ahmed's three points in his opening show why depositing a supernatural solution into a naturalistic hole does not work well.
I also like Ahmed's introduction of himself as NOT a "devout atheist." He admits that he might quite like to believe certain aspects related to the idea of religion, (particularly his survival of his own death in some way!), but he simply sees no good reason for it. Fair enough.
Of course, one might point out that it is very difficult to disprove the supernatural as well. Cue people to start referencing the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. but I'm not talking about specifics. I just mean the possibility of some force or entity that does not need to play by the rules of naturalism somewhere in existence. If a supernatural force altered the "matrix" five seconds ago and changed our memories, we wouldn't know it. Of course, even if this DID happen, there is still not necessarily any good reason to believe it. So the best advice is a sense of faith - a recognition of human limitation followed by a positive attitude of trust towards the unknown - and a reliance on reason to deal with what we can understand - "understand" being a word with a very open-ended definition I think.....
Anyhoo - good opening statement by Arif Ahmed!
Here it is.