I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.
As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.
In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.
Then your apologists must be supremely naive: their confirmation bias is showing (perhaps wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles at the same time has that effect).
We've been through this with Alien, who has struggled with this too: nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded': no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth, as might be expected given that religiosity was probably the norm back then so that people were highly credulous of a religious narrative much more so than today.
So credulous they forgot that dead people stay dead?
Therefore, without a method to explain it, a resurrection can't be considered likely (e.g. it has no probability) but that people make mistakes and tell lies in support of causes is known human behaviour and as such is a clear possibility: and one that Christians here seem happy to avoid addressing.
A few contradictions to sort out here:
"but that people make mistakes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded' "
"but that people... tell lies in support of causes... is known human behaviour"
But you just said "no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth".
So far then, no method is needed to explain the resurrection for it to be considered as the explanation for Christianity.
