In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[GrandizerII]

Yes, and all that takes is seeing an empty tomb where they thought Jesus' body was supposed to be and a viral faith-based interpretation of that. Note that in the earliest copies of Mark, no one witnessed the risen Jesus; they believed on faith.

Thats not what the earliest copies of Mark indicated. Mark indicated he had risen, and he was going before the disciples, in Galilee. Mark closes without narrating that encounter. But he acknowledges that the disciples did witness the risen Jesus.

No, he doesn't. He states what the women reported hearing from that man in the tomb, but nowhere in the passage does it say that they did witness the risen Christ. Early Mark simply reported what the women were told. It took Later Mark and the other Gospel authors to state that people did see the risen Christ.

The earlier followers of Jesus, his disciples strongly believed in the reality of the resurrection, just as strongly, if nor more strongly than christians today. They staked their life, and their communities life on it.

Yes, they truly believed. It wasn't an insincere belief. But it doesn't mean the belief itself was true. 

Um, no, not necessarily.

See Millerism and the Seventh-day Adventists. If there is enough trigger(s) to keep the community's faith going, then the community can recover in no time and be even more strengthened in their faith. You should read Influence by Cialdini, where he tells a story among many of how a faith-based group will go out of their way to validate their faith after a crisis of disappointment and falsified prophecy and be even more strengthened in terms of their faith.

What followed Miller’s failure, was The Great Disappointment, this disillusionment of his followers, many of whom who abandoned him, or offshoot into other traditions like the SDA. Miller pretty much died along with his failed prophecies. But they did have the additional of being built of Christianity, that most of his followers were able to settle back into some version of Christianity in his demise.

Millerism managed to survive through SDA. Just as how Messianic Jesusism managed to survive through later Christian church.

In fact if it wasn’t for our views of supernatural events, if we believe they were just as possible as natural events, we’d easily conclude that Jesus did resurrect as we would do that he existed.

No, we still wouldn't ... maybe you, but not others ...

It’s only because of precommitments, that we’s unlikely to accept this explanation. It’s only based on commitments like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that ordinary evidence isn’t sufficient.

It's not simply just that. It's a matter of Bayesian reasoning. If the evidence we keep seeing corresponds to the case against the Resurrection more than the case for the Resurrection, then this decreases the odds that the Resurrection is true and eventually renders it a weak explanation.

Just look at some of the points here that correspond more to the cases against the Resurrection:

Early Mark 16 was very minimalistic.

According to contemporary/later sources, only a handful of named persons were said to have seen the risen Christ.

Jesus conveniently ascends into heaven after a short while after the Resurrection.

This event just happens to occur in a time and place where there were no cameras and videos to record the event.

As a group, people have been prone to believe in fantastical things that just weren't true.

We just don't have a case of the supernatural that we can conclusively agree actually happened.

Nice try but this has nothing to do about relieving anxiety (maybe for you it is, but not for me). For me, this is about intellectual honesty. If we don't have enough details to go by, we can't come up with a confident conclusion.

It has nothing to do with intellectual honesty. It has everything to do with our presuppositions, not honesty. 

The resurrection defies all naturalistic explanations. Every attempt to paint it into any natural pathology, fails. Whatever transpired after Christs death, looked nothing like failed expectations, like the impact of disillisonement, or anything that ever took place from a messiah claimant getting strung up.

Now you might reject that it was supernatural still, but you can perhaps concede that?

Nope, because I don't agree with that assessment of history.