I came across this post via a link to their website at Spare Change(see God & Bush blogroll).
Jared puts forth the thesis that prove of the resurrection lies in the very existance of the church itself.

But something unique happened after Jesus’ death, something completely unexpected and inconceivable. His followers kept following. It makes absolutely no sense. Nobody follows a dead messiah, because, as was mentioned above, a dead messiah was not a messiah after all. If Jesus’ life ended for good on the cross, he was not who he said he was. Or, at the least, he was not who his followers believed he was. What should have happened after Jesus’ death is the scattering of his followers, or perhaps their attaching themselves to one of Jesus’ brothers or something. You don’t keep saying a dead man was the messiah. The thought is inconceivable. Again: the idea of a messiah who dies wasn’t really a viable option in first century Jewish messianic ideology. Nothing can really explain the extraordinary turn of events in the years following Jesus’ death.

Nothing, that is, but the resurrection.

- Thinklings: The Resurrection

While I agree with the premise of the argument I don't think it would be as effective as he seems to believe. First and foremost, most people don't have extensive knowledge of first century jewish messianic ideology. This is something to help solidify the faith of someone that's already crossed over, not to bring new people into the Church.

BTW, read the comments to get some of the possible arguments against this along with some nonsensical comments.