This is related to the question in my other thread, but it is a different question so here goes:
Even if a good argument can be made for a Resurrection, why would God expect us to believe that it was His doing? Just because there is an argument that makes sense doesn’t make the actual event true…an argument makes you think “well, maybe they’re right”, but it isn’t very persuasive to be sitting here reading some Christian scholar online who says “these are the reasons we know the Resurrection happened”… I mean, there are LOTS of arguments online for lots of things that “make sense”, from miracle diets, to UFOs, to other religions, to you name it…but a “logical argument” doesn’t mean that what is being argued is actually true, it just means that the person writing it is very good with words and debate, and the person reading is impressionable…KWIM?
Also, even if the event actually happened…how do we know Jesus wasn’t an alien? I know that question sounds kinda stupid - but really, how do we know we’re not worshiping some alien or time traveler who could control matter in ways we’ve never imagined possible?
My point is, it doesn’t make sense that salvation is predicated on our belief in an event that we can’t witness first hand. If God gave me the ability to reason, why would God want me to believe something that depends on someone else telling me something that supposedly happened a long time before I was born? Essentially, it seems that salvation is based on believing something akin to hearsay. That seems so silly to me.