Running back to the priors 4: Evidence does not matter

Here I point directly to Arif Ahmed's "run back to the priors" move. He very nearly admits that his "explanation" of the resurrection evidence doesn't do a very good job explaining, but then he says that however low the prior probability of a naturalistic hypothesis, the prior probability of the resurrection should always be much, much lower. This means that he could always just conjoin the evidence with "the miracle didn't happen" and assume that the prior probability of that conjunction is much higher than the resurrection. But in that case, why bother pretending to come up with something to explain the evidence?