Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it
Sure. Leroy's here, I see. He made such arguments recently in another thread. He also argued that the most likely explanation for the biblical scripture claiming Resurrection was that it actually occurred, and his evidence was some of yours - biblical tales of multiple people reporting witnessing a resurrection. He also added scriptural story of the empty tomb and that the existence of martyrs mean that what they died for probably happened.
It's possible the experiences were what you say but then again it's also possible they weren't. What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one.
The best explanation is never supernaturalistic, since it requires the existence of a realm outside of nature inhabited by a tri-omni god, neither of which is known to exist.
for the sake of the argument let's assume Jesus is the only case where God raised someone from the dead. I would like you to elaborate why you think this goes against the way we know the world works. Afaik we don't know that if God wishes he doesn't or can't raise a dead person, we just know that the natural course is that dead people stay dead.
We don't know that any god exists, nor that resurrecting a three-days dead cadaver is possible in the strong sense of could actually happen like an asteroidal impact of earth rather than not yet known to be impossible like time travel.
I would like to know how you could calculate the probability of God raising someone from the dead if He wishes to do so.
If by God you mean the deity of the Christian Bible, even if a god or gods of some sort exist, we can know that that particular god doesn't.
the second fact of the historical bedrock is that some of these experiences were group experiences.
It's not a fact that there were any such experiences, just a report of them likely added once it was decided to promote a new religion around a dead itinerant fundamentalist rabbi.
I don't find it convincing that there are any known facts that make it implausible.
Plenty of known facts make insurrection implausible. I just gave you some.
May I ask what these logical fallacies are and where I made them?
Your thinking is tendentious. It's goal-oriented, and not the goal of critical thinking - sound conclusion. You place excessive emphasis on the validity of scripture and the possibility of resurrection. You give them both a pass and accept them uncritically. Apparently, your audience doesn't.
If naturalism is true it's unlikely that a miracle is an explanation but if supernaturalism is true the miracle as an explanation becomes far more likely.
Resurrection would remain not known to be impossible but not known to have ever occurred to known to be possible but not known to have ever occurred. I don't call that far more likely.
the type of hallucinations require to explain the data, would have to be a type of hallucinations that has never been observed, nor proven to be possible.
Mass hallucination is not the likeliest explanation. Fiction is, as described above. These witnesses likely never existed. Next most likely, they were verbally persuaded something happened that didn't. Mass hallucination come next, and a very distant fourth is an actual resurrection.
resurection or not, you still have an extraordinary event.
All you have are mostly uncorroborated claims.
the point of the OP (and Liconas book) is that the resurection is the best explanation for such facts.
Apparently not with the critical thinkers that you haven't convinced. Whose assessments shall we consider more reliable, people who specialize in reasoning or people willing to believe by faith?
