This is one of the most loaded questions in human history, and it usually gets answered in one of two unsatisfying ways: fervent yes with no engagement with the difficulties, or dismissive no with no engagement with the evidence. Here's an attempt at something more honest.
What we can say with reasonable confidence
Most historians — including secular ones with no stake in the theological outcome — accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was executed by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, probably around 30 CE. We can also say with reasonable confidence that within a very short time of Jesus's death, a group of his followers began claiming he had risen from the dead — and that this belief spread rapidly, at significant personal cost to the people spreading it. People don't typically die for things they know to be fabricated.
The strongest case for
The most compelling argument for taking Christianity seriously isn't the miracles. It's the transformation. The group of frightened, scattered disciples who hid after the crucifixion became, within weeks, a movement willing to die for their claims. Something happened. The explanation that most simply accounts for everything that followed is that they believed, with absolute conviction, that they had seen the risen Jesus.
The strongest case against
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence for the resurrection is ancient, filtered through communities with strong reasons to present it favourably, and impossible to independently verify. The history of religion also shows that devoted communities regularly generate sincere belief in events that did not happen.
Where that leaves us
Christianity asks for faith, not proof. The historical evidence is more robust than many critics acknowledge, and more ambiguous than many believers admit. What you do with that ambiguity says as much about your philosophical priors as it does about the evidence itself.