[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Mister Agenda]

Do you think that if, among several explanations, you pick the one that best fits the available data as most likely to be closest to what's actually true, that it is an example of what most people mean by 'cherry-picking'?

If they’re several explanations of the same available data, how do I decide which one fits better? What exactly does fit mean?

Let’s take Bart historicist explanations of Jesus vs Richard Carriers ahistoricist explanations, how do I decide which explanation fits the data better?

If there are several explanations that fit the data equally, then you can't rationally select one as being the best explanation.

I lean slightly towards historical Jesus, but I don't know. And if I agree with Ehrman's conclusion, it might be that I arrived at my inexpert conclusion by different reasoning. I'm okay with leaving it an open question pending new evidence.
;