A resurrection Is an extraordinary claim. There is zero evidence, extraordinary or ordinary. For some reason, in your mind, you think it happened. Is it because the less likely something is to happen, the more likely a one off event appears to be true? - you tell me, there's nothing rational or logical about it.
The roots of Hinduism go back a couple thousand years before Christianity. For tens of thousands of years before that, who knows? The bible conatins stories pinched from others before. There may have been a better god that was invented before reliable documentation means became available. So time of birth does have an impact - if you were born around 100BC, you would not be a Christian.
Of course a resurrection is an extraordinary event to testify to. It took something extraordinary to demonstrate to those present that Jesus was who he said he was. When he was just another dead body hanging on a cross, there was nothing extraordinary about him at that point and he would have probably been largely forgotten, or at least given no more a place in history than any other philosopher. By your "logic" an extraordinary event is not evidence of God and neither is an ordinary event, like a sunrise or a tree growing. Again, you are like Thomas and I believe you will one day have the same opportunity to have all the proof you need to believe.
What is not rational or logical is your refusal to acknowledge that the testimony of multiple people about an event = evidence of said event. While you may choose to not give the witness(es) the same amount of credibility as I do, your continued refusal to even acknowledge that evidence does exist makes you less and less credible as a purveyor of truth. You would make a wonderful press secretary for our current occupant of the White House; but unfortunately for you, the position is already filled by someone who has a similar distaste for the meaning of words and a similar willingness to ignore inconvenient facts.
