The question is which side has the best explanation of all the evidence. You can explain away some problems by positing the supernatural, but the secular explanations might be more plausible. You'd have to study them to find out.

Why would the gospel authors copy from each other if they were supposedly dictating what God was telling them? And why were they subtly changing those texts to suit discernable agendas that had to do with promoting their particular communities? The simplest explanation is that they were trying to outdo each other in selling Christianity. That's not the agenda of writers offering neutral accounts of history.

And in any case, if three of the four gospels depend on one of the others, that lowers their reliability because there would be only one independent source between them (such as Mark). Historians look for multiple independent attestations. The NT presents four gospels as though they were independent, but scholars realized they're not.