What is your opinion of Christianity?

[afleitch]

In all seriousness, Christianity as a system has willfully and with intent suppressed and invalidated (even eradicated) LGBT persons throughout it's history. And I know you're all going to roll your eyes at that and think 'oh there he goes again' and might even be offended because you personally don't hold to that belief but it's still an important point. So it starts at a deficit for me personally.

[afleitch]

If the first formal account is 50AD, then it's not contemporaneous. There are a whole manner of reasons to doubt the narrative, but for a thought exercise let's grant some authority to what people said they saw, we still have no reason to favour a supernatural explanation over a natural explanation. Particularly from a people, generally conditioned to see supernatural explanations for all manner of things. Even the 'advanced' Romans. So you are making a concession for this one event and other events surrounding your belief system. You can accept the narrative as you describe it, but the hypothesis is based on belief alone.

Alluding to Hume here. There are no cases where previously assumed and accepted (for want of an explanation to the contrary) supernatural explanations have won out over naturalistic explanations.

If we do not currently have a plausible naturalistic explanation for the resurrection narrative, if that narrative is accepted as a 'truth' it is still more likely that there will be a plausible naturalistic explanation for the narrative in the future, rather than the resurrection hypothesis is true.

But let's assume that there is no naturalistic explanation of the resurrection narrative. We accept it in it's entirety, from tombs to the dead rising from the grave to meet their relatives as nothing more than an accurate historical account of what happened. Consequently, the only possible form of explanation will be supernatural in nature. But that alone wouldn't elevate the resurrection hypothesis as the most plausible explanation.

Paul’s claim, and from that that the assumption from apologetics that 500 people cannot hallucinate the same thing at the same at the same time is itself a naturalistic inference based on our understanding of the physical and naturalistic causation behind hallucination (again, something of no concern or consequence to those conditioned to view hallucinations as supernatural.) But such explanations are not needed if you accept the event as supernatural. We could therefore easily assume that there was a supernatural mass hallucination as opposed to a supernaturally induced physical resurrection.

What's the reason, other than faith, to believe one supernatural explanation over the other?