(1/2)
Please clarify what you mean by supernatural, because I'm not sure you're using it in the conventional sense.
>Buddhism makes no supernatural claims
Buddhism makes no claims to the supernatural because it does not concern itself with it. The arguments that sustain it do not do so from a western form of analysis however and it is thus deemed less worthy, maybe unfairly so.
> historical evidence for Islam doesn't lend itself to supernatural belief the way christianity does. IE, why would so many people follow this random guy if there wasn't a resurrection etc.
I feel like that's incredibly fallacious. First of all Islam is incredibly concerned with the supernatural. There is plenty of discussion about Djinns, about healing, visions and miracles.
Secondly, just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. Compelling maybe, but thousands of falsehoods are compelling. One can make a similar argument for Scientology and eastern forms of mysticism, OP. How many hundreds of thousands all over the world believe in their versions of God-men because they perform 'miracles'.
Furthermore, while the Bible is fairly authoritative when it comes to historical accuracy I'd be very cautious before believing any supernatural claim I read in it. AS YOU SHOULD FOR ANY HISTORICAL BOOK.
>One could also argue since religion is primarily a cultural institution, one could judge them off the effects of their cultures. Christianity and the culture that emerged from it produced the enlightenment, science, prosperity, etc. Islam gave us no such thing.
Islam was a shining source of enilghtenment until the ravages of the Mongols and the repeated warfare finally caught up with them. There is a significant recency bias here. If you were born in 1100 A.D., this would have been a compelling argument for Islam.
>The Judeo-Christian West is the greatest force for prosperity ever to exist, heavily flawed as it is. Thus Christianity seems the pragmatic choice, given the alternatives.
My point again is that the Judeo-Christian worldview did not exist in a vaccuum. I'd argue again, that it's Greco-Roman philosophies that influenced the west. Christianity was merely the clothes draped upon these philosophies.
>There's also an aesthetic notion to it. You can't pick between frameworks without a meta framework, but since these things are so fundamental there's no good logical arguments for them. How does one pick between absurdism and hedonism? Taoism or Buddhism? Each answer to existential thought is a self contained framework, to pick between them you need something else to evaluate them. Beauty is the only thing that really fits the bill.
So your answer then cannot be to abandon the debate, but to continue to delve these depths. These arguments do not end within a religion/Christianity. Of course, some may prefer to not think too much about these matters, but there is yet plenty of discussion within the framework of Christianity.