1) Lack of knowledge (first granting a resurrection)
Even in light of accepting the resurrection of Jesus as plausible, I can think of at least two factors that counteract the premise that such an event necessitates belief in the Judeo-Christian God alone.
1) The mere existence of a mass variety of competing miraculous claims within the world, many of which contradict one another in regards to defining a God or gods would seem to provide grounds for suspending one’s personal judgement and tendency toward bias.
This is because the consensus of faith based claims by nature do not provide a bridge into our present knowledge. This is key! In other words there is no compass provided in order to make an informed judgement from within any religious context.
Why play favorites? Why be biased toward just one religio-historical set of beliefs?
2) Since Christians widely agree on a closed canon, this implies that since the time of Jesus, God for unknown reasons has decided to no longer provide indisputable public revelation. This lack of public revelation automatically makes the resurrection into an obscure past event. Nothing in the present is able to connect believers and skeptics alike to this miracle. Therefore a wide breadth of time and inactivity would appear to naturally decrease the plausibility of this claim in light of other viable sources of knowledge that are unable to confirm it. Present studies of the world have yet to validate a reliable source of miraculous phenomena.
Also, lack of indisputable public revelation is not open to peer review, hence why religion is so varied between every culture! What is more likely? Religion is vastly varied due to inherent dishonesty about what humans truly know about God deep down, or religion is vastly varied due to a lack of revelation, which by default becomes a lack of knowledge?
Both of these factors indicate an absence of relevant information that could otherwise be availed to us.
2) Nature of the claim (lowered plausibility due to lack of justification).
It would be in the best interest of Theism to provide justification if it intends to survive in an age of scientific inquiry and knowledge. Science is established, its methods are able to sway and debunk previous religious claims and ideas, it does this in the face of criticism and critiques toward methodological naturalism.
a) Inability to adequately negate opposing supernatural claims as a basis for belief (inability to distinguish between true and false miracles).
The claim of a resurrection is unable to provide any indication as to what other kinds of miracles are either true or false in nature. Instead it opens the door into a plethora of other possibilities that are equally unaccounted for in the present. Since this is the case, people of other religious perspectives are free to interpret the resurrection of Jesus into their own religious paradigm.
b) Inability to negate opposing views that advocate more than one God
The claim of a resurrection is unable to distinguish between one or many gods. Let’s approach this in another way. The Judeo-Christian God is said to get the credit for Jesus allegedly rising from death. The only problem is that Yahweh has never come around since to take a bow and receive a standing ovation. In other words, it is precisely the fact that silence surrounds this past obscure claim that brings opposing religions and skeptics to question either who deserves the credit or whether anybody is even to be credited in the first place? The resurrection story could just as well be made up! Is anyone familiar with the phrase, “silence speaks louder than words?” If the phone line has been dead for thousands of years, maybe it’s time to hang up, just saying!
c) Inability to negate possible dishonesty (ulterior motives for belief)
The resurrection claim also does not provide any indication as to whether it is a truly honest claim. Instead it appeals to the authority of God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why submit to such authority in the midst of mass religious variety and competition? It’s kind of like a line of different car sales reps all appealing to the quality of a similar vehicle that functions or benefits the buyer in much the same way, regardless of their final choice. An Agnostic-Atheist also sees reasons both to suspend judgement and reject many aspects of the sale. The product just doesn’t appear to be very reliable or beneficial in the first place.
3) Resurrection As Intentional Anomaly
1) An event that intends to cultivate belief but defeats its own goal by also inciting skepticism among religious and nonreligious alike.
The extraordinary, or odd nature of the resurrection claim is in itself a reason to pause and take a step back within one’s capacity to discern its credibility. This claim intends to impress the truth seeker into belief by employing the wow factor to a high degree! The God of Jesus has vanquished death and ushered in eternal life! People are simply expected to embrace this belief in spite of the fact that such claims cannot be duplicated. This in itself places a very heavy burden on the truth seeker. In fact it brings the truth seeker to one of two choices. Either suspend judgement due to a lack of relevant knowledge on the matter, or ignore the need to reason objectively and actively get to the bottom of where our knowledge stops.
Skepticism becomes justified because resurrections are by nature abnormal occurences in the world. Even if the claim appears plausible in light of its historical context. It becomes an anomaly. How wise is it to bank on obscure and irregular claims?
2) An event that breeds confusion rather than consistency.
Finally, it must be pointed out that there are clearly better alternatives for establishing the knowledge of God in this world. I and many skeptics would accept a form of Theism in which God intervenes clearly and indisputably among all cultures. To call this expectation unrealistic would seem to defy the necessity of any previously assumed revelation from the Judeo-Christian God. Since the Bible itself acknowledges that God’s public intervention was needed in the past then it only follows that it is still needed now. If this need is not currently being met in the world then it is either neglect on the part of an existing God, or it is likely a dead line that is unable to cultivate knowledge and belief. If this is the case then it is especially justified to suspend judgement and employ skepticism as a useful tool.
Thank you again for considering my observations and arguments!