Since we're dealing with inductive logic, what matters is prior probability and explanatory power. C&C [Greg Cavin and Carlos Colombetti, in "The Great Mars Hill Resurrection Debate"] offer a 1-2 punch against the Resurrection as an explanatory hypothesis. First, R has a vanishingly low prior probability, far lower than any serious naturalistic explanation.
Second, it's far from clear that R explains the alleged data. By itself, R says nothing about the risen Jesus did after His resurrection. You have unwittingly conflated the Resurrection hypothesis with the New Testament stories / claims of what the risen Jesus did AFTER his resurrection. I agree that what the NT claims happened is possible. Sure, he could have moved the stone, walked out of the tomb, and appeared to different people. But the content of R doesn't include those activities. All R says is that Jesus rose from the dead. .... R is also compatible with the risen Jesus sitting in the tomb indefinitely, basking in his own supreme glory. Or it could be the case that R is true and, after his death, the risen Jesus teleported to central America, appearing to various indigenous people, in a fashion similar to what is reported by the Book of Mormon. Now, I obviously don't believe that happened. The point is that R by itself gives us no more reason to expect one of these 'extra-curricular' activities than any other. .... This much is certain: R does not ENTAIL the data. In other words, the probability of Jesus' crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and postmortem appearances, CONDITIONAL UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT R IS TRUE, is less than 1.
Those are good points. And with all that I have a better idea of what C&C were getting at with their suggestion that R falls short of explaining the facts so often cited in support of it. To this I would say firstly that whereas R is admittedly not a complete explanation, it’s at least a partial explanation. So to derive a full explanation we would have to employ a chain of inferences drawn from two widely attested propositions: