Consider this a book club then.
Nah. We're having a pretty productive conversation thus far. You even invited it.
No one is arguing for the resurrection on the basis of how things naturally are
Then it shouldn't perplex you why people would regard the resurrection as implausible, which was your original question to me.
If you complain that even on supernaturalism people don't raise from the dead, the context of Jesus life establishes a chance for divine vindication via a resurrection and as such offers something not present in the other cases.
How do you know any of that? Again, none of this is contained in the original 3 premises.
This is the symmetry breaker, a chance to prove if Jesus actually was the real deal or not. Your requirement for establishing the miracles of his life as actual before a vindication can be offered is nonsensical as the vindication is what would serve to establish them. In other words, the claims are what provides the context, not the factuality of those claims.
You can't just claim something with no evidence - not reasonably, anyway. How do you know that premise is true? And how does that premise lead logically to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead?
If a supernatural explanation is possible and it explains the data we shouldn't dismiss it just because someone else looking at it is a naturalist. That's the exact opposite of bracketing worldviews as we're dismissing an explanation based on someone else's horizon instead of the data. We need to follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of our horizons, not look at the evidence through tinted glasses of the horizon.
Again, no. Bracketing our worldviews
requires that we only look at what can be demonstrated outside of our worldview. The overlap of that Venn diagram between the naturalist and the supernaturalist is natural things. Again, this is why serious professional historians don't explain historical events with "God did it," or "Magic did it," or "Ghosts did it," even if they might privately believe those things.
By looking at the data and checking what best explains it. If we can't think of a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation does the job, the supernatural explanation would be the best explanation so I'd go with that.
But that doesn't account for your potential ignorance of a natural explanation. Just because you can't think of something, doesn't mean it isn't there. So again I ask - how do you distinguish between a natural cause you don't understand, and a supernatural cause? At this point it seems you don't have a method. When you encounter something you don't know how to explain, you chalk it up by default to the supernatural. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
One of the problems with supernatural explanations, and why they're not very useful or explanatory, is that they can be used to fit
any evidence. What evidence could we possibly find that your version of God
couldn't cause to happen? It's unfalsifiable. This is why I asked for your methods of discerning one type of cause from another.