Skeptics assume naturalism

The more I read and listen to all the skeptical arguments against the resurrection, fundamentally, there is only one argument against it – nothing supernatural can happen. Whether it’s skeptics arguing against the textual evidence of the minimal facts argument by Habermas and Licona or it’s the artifact evidence of the TS and the cloth collapse theory, the reason a resurrection is rejected is supernaturalistic explanations are rejected a priori. This is so ingrained in most peoples’ minds that they fail to recognize that philosophical naturalism is only an assumption. It is assumed to be true, but in fact there is no way to demonstrate it is actually true. The problem shows up in that there is no consistent definition of what is “natural”. And it shows up where naturalists are left with either saying “I don’t know how it happened” or even proposing non-natural explanations for past events.