I think you must have missed my post some time ago which postulates what a materialist or group of materialists would make if they chanced upon a resurrection. One option is that they would express the event in terms of materialism.
What is a 'materielist'?
In the present day a reasonable person would be sceptical, given the highly unusual nature of the claim, and would be looking for an independent investigation using suitable methods. This is clearly impossible regarding the NT claim, and of course the anecdotal accounts in the NT are of uncertain provenance and, as such, there is the risk of bias and propaganda if written by supporters of Jesus. Then there is the culture of that place and those times to consider, where people may have been more credulous in respect of religious narratives and miracle claims.
There is much to be sceptical about, and you guys seem determined to avoid considering the risks of mistakes and lies.
Given that life is dependent on the organisation of matter then there is a possibility of a spontaneous improbable reorganisation of matter.
Would this be a natural or divine spontaneous re-organisation of matter? In any event this reads like an argument from personal incredulity.
In this case resurrection has no inevitable divine connection.
In that case either it can happen naturally to a three-day dead body, where there is enough knowledge now to reject this out-of-hand, or it didn't happen at all: either Jesus stayed dead or wasn't killed at that point and the resurrection element of the story is a lie.
Since you presume there was a 'resurrection' then the burden of proof is yours.
Another reaction would be for the materialist to deny the experience, to be true to her philosophy rather than her scientific curiosity.
What do you mean by 'experience'?
They have also forgotten what is referred to here as the problem of induction. And also Popper who lays the ground for unexpected events and considers them worthy and important enough for mention.
You're getting ahead of yourself, Vlad, by lurching towards induction and Popper. That people make mistakes, have biases and tell lies is known human behaviour for which there is copious evidence so that when faced with anecdotal reports containing remarkable claims an early step must surely be to consider these risks: you seem determined to avoid this possibility.
Alternatively the materialist may convert.
How do you mean? You'll need to explain this point, since it sounds like you are saying the resurrection only makes sense if you first accept the divine claims made for Jesus - is that what you mean? If so then it sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias.
Although the last materialist has detected the divine here that aspect remains faith and a historic event yet for the other materialists who acknowledge the resurrection as a rare, possibly unique material event the resurrection would be a historic event.
Then you'll need to find a historian, and not a theologian or theist, who treats the claimed resurrection of Jesus as being a historical event. You seem confused in that on one hand you note that faith is needed as a prerequisite for accepting that there was divine intervention but then you still seem to hang on to the notion that there is a naturalisitic explanation - sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it!
Even then you prefer to ignore one naturalistic option: human artifice.
This is why I think those who relegate the event to faith alone are missing the point.
What point would that be?
Hope this helps.
It has in way: it confirms just how utterly confused you are in that you clearly accept the resurrection as an article of personal religious faith, which is fine, but like some other Christians that clearly isn't enough for you and you end up thrashing about trying to find other ways to rationalise what is fundamentally irrational.
Your reluctance to consider the risks of human artifice is telling too, in that it implies special pleading that those involved in compiling the NT were immune from human failings.
