The relevant point is: If Paul (and other Christians) honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection, then he was not lying, which means that any theory that implies that Christians lied about the resurrection should be discarded. In other words it´s not an argument for the resurrection, it’s an argument against alternative theories that imply that that Christians laid.
I assume that you mean that Paul was not lying when he said that he believed a resurrection occurred, and not lying about whether one actually occurred. I don't see why that's relevant since Paul wasn't an eyewitness of a resurrection. If there was lying about the resurrection, it was done by people who were present relatively recently after the crucifixion. Others that have believed them are not liars. You believe them. I do not consider you a liar, just somebody willing to believe with less than I require to believe.
It's not important to me what fraction of this story is due to lying, misunderstanding, delusion or hallucination, or confirmation bias (the will to believe). What was the breakdown at Jonestown, where several hundred people believed that Jim Jones was "a return of
Elijah the Prophet, the voice of God, a manifestation of Christ." How many of them were liars? Was Jones a liar or just delusional? I don't know. Were his cadre liars or delusional or hallucinating or just too willing to believe? I don't know. His followers? Same answer, except probably few liars. The point is that any combination of these is more believable than the claim that he was any of those things.
Consider other cases of large groups of people sharing a similar faith-based vision, such as the hundreds of people that stormed the Capitol building. How many do you think lying about their belief that the election was stolen? How many of those people believe that a fair election transpired, but are saying otherwise anyway? I'd guess that most at the top who planned and organized the insurrection fit that description, but most of the soldiers appear to have been deceived and were sincere in their false beliefs.
Now do the same with anti-vax. You've got people like Trump and Fox talking heads promoting the idea that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, and millions of rank and file consumers of their words agreeing. Which are lying, which are hallucinating, which are delusional, and which simply are willing to believe what they are told? I don't know. My point is that it doesn't matter, and arguing over whether lying was an element at any level is unnecessary.
As I said, I don't consider you a liar, hallucinating, or delusional. You fit in the category of willing to believe despite insufficient support, but believing that you have sufficient support to believe gauging by your arguments placing so much weight on multiple second- and third-hand testimonials including the claim of an empty tomb that could only exist because the body within had been resurrected. Forget the problem of a physical body ascending presumably through rock into the open air like a rocket launch, and ascending in the direction of whatever constellation was overhead at the time. When did that body separate from the soul within it?
When that happened, did the body fall back toward earth like a spent rocket booster after separation (I'm presuming that heaven doesn't have coordinates in our space, so there was no physical destination the body could go and be closer to heaven)?
If not, where is the body now? In interstellar space like Voyager? I realize this is all ridiculous, albeit no more so than three Magi following a star to a manger in a foreign country (how does one know which manger is under the star, and can camels really go 1000 miles per hour?), but if one is citing the absence of a physical body in a tomb as evidence of a resurrection, then one is saying that the body left the tomb and the earth.
