Fallacy?

1. Max tells ressurection jesus is a miracle!

2. Samuel claims that there is possibility that may have happened due to some natural phenomena so miracles aren't the only possibility

3. Max claims that how do you know that mobiles are created by humans?

4. Samuel says that they are created by humans because they don't pop up in nature and nature has no law governing it.

5. Max says then you should believe that Jesus ressurrected because people don't reasurrect in nature and nature has no laws governing it.

Max's logic seems to be: "if you believe that mobiles were made by humans because they don't 'appear naturally', then you should believe that Jesus resurrected because people don't 'resurrect' naturally."

Right...but this is presupposing that Jesus actually resurrected, for which there is no evidence (so, this is begging the question by trying to explain the origin of something we did not prove is even real).

We actually have evidence that phones exist - check your pocket - so we can assume they are real and work on explanations for how they came about. As it turns out, we have historical evidence for the creation and evolution of phones, from Graham Bell's origin invention to modern-day mobiles...and we notice that humans are at the forefront the entire time.

It is thus sensible to believe that humans made mobiles, because there's actual empirical observation to back that up (which does not exist for Jesus' resurrection, entirely faith-based as it is - so this could also be considered a weak analogy.)

We could even argue equivocation because there's a difference between something being synthetic (like any finished consumer good) and being supernatural (violating the laws of nature). Mobile phones are the first, Jesus' resurrection would probably fit the second. Both are 'not natural', yet one doesn't go against years and years of scientific understanding (in fact, science powers the mobiles we use on a daily basis).