This is a follow-up to my previous question.
Thomas had received the message from his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Being the skeptic that he is, he then rejected their testimony saying that he would not believe until he had seen Jesus for himself. (John 20:25)
This puts us, modern day readers of the gospel, in an awkward situation. Thomas' evidence was vastly superior to ours. Not only did he have evidence from direct eye-witness accounts, he could even interact with these witnesses and ask them questions about their testimony. On top of that, Thomas had previously met Jesus personally and had witnessed other miracles of his doing.
Everything taken into account, Thomas did not hold this as vindication of the resurrection, and Jesus being considerate of that decided to live up to Thomas' standards by manifesting himself directly.
Our sources on the other hand are accounts written after the time of Jesus, none written by eye-witness accounts (unless you consider Matthew and John traditions to be reliable, which most scholars believe to be anonymous) and most of the gospels, the synoptic gospels, are thought to have been based on a common written source rather than be independent testimonies of Jesus' ministry.)
Regarding Paul, we read that he was a Pharisee and a persecuter of the early disciples, whom he deemed as blasphemers. Paul came to believe in Jesus only after his revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus directly manifested himself to him.
So if Thomas would not put up with evidence that is infinitely more valuable to what we have today, if Paul would not accept the testimony preached by the early disciples, why should we accept the resurrection, as related in the gospels? The common denominator of both is that they set their senses as their standard for truth, either by their sight, hearing, or touch. Can such a person who does not receive a revelation of this sort be faulted for disbelieving?