Can we disprove the resurrection?

[AgnosticBoy]

A lot of atheists don't accept that Jesus's resurrection occurred. I can understand that the Christian appeal to 'historical' evidence is not enough to support the resurrection. But that doesn't make it false, and it certainly doesn't mean you get to impose a natural explanation.

[elphidium55]

When you think about it, the question "Is there life after death?" seems synonomous with the question "Is there life after life ceases?" This seems like a trick question. Or did I miss something?

[historia]

History as a science does not and cannot use supernatural explanations. Such moves are outside it's proper domain.

This, I think, is a good argument. You could have ended your case right here.

Scripture is an inherently historically unreliable genre.

This, on the other hand, is not a good argument. The problem here is that 'Scripture' is not really a literary genre, but rather a category that some religious groups subsequently apply to certain texts, often long after they have been written.

Imagine, for example, that the Gospel of Mark was not included in the New Testament canon. Would that then make it more historically reliable? Does the act of adding it to the canon now suddenly, in itself, make it unreliable?

The 'evidence' offered for 'resurrection' is decidedly NOT 'historical'

This is also a bad argument, and illustrative of how some people simply misunderstand historical terminology. Any historical account is decidedly "historical evidence." The question that faces the historian is how best to explain the available historical evidence. The historian may ultimately decide an account is legendary, for example.

Do you have evidence that it is more than just a story? Until evidence is presented, there is no reason to accept it is true.

This is also a bad argument. Much of our knowledge of the past, and particularly ancient history, comes from individual written accounts. So to dismiss an historical account solely on the grounds that it "just a story" or an "unverified tale" amounts to special pleading. This is overstating your case.

[Zzyzx]

.
Speaking of bad arguments:

The 'evidence' offered for 'resurrection' is decidedly NOT 'historical'

This is also a bad argument, and illustrative of how some people simply misunderstand historical terminology. Any historical account is decidedly "historical evidence." The question that faces the historian is how best to explain the available historical evidence. The historian may ultimately decide an account is legendary, for example.

The 'evidence' for 'resurrection' consists of unverified TALES of an empty tomb; unwarranted ASSUMPTIONS that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left; unverified CLAIMS that associates had postmortem meetings with the deceased (plus 'many believed' -- argumentum ad populum).

In the absence of corroborating evidence, does 'historical methodology' conclude that the 'resurrection' actually happened?

Are back-to-life tales of OTHER 'gods' regarded as 'historical evidence' that such things actually / literally occurred in the real world?

[Goat]

This is also a bad argument, and illustrative of how some people simply misunderstand historical terminology. Any historical account is decidedly "historical evidence." The question that faces the historian is how best to explain the available historical evidence. The historian may ultimately decide an account is legendary, for example.

Do you have evidence that it is more than just a story? Until evidence is presented, there is no reason to accept it is true.

This is also a bad argument. Much of our knowledge of the past, and particularly ancient history, comes from individual written accounts. So to dismiss an historical account solely on the grounds that it "just a story" or an "unverified tale" amounts to special pleading. This is overstating your case.

That is a very poor counter, and mistaking the 'unverified tale' and 'special pleading'. The main reason is 'There is no evidence that this 'undefined resurrection is physically possible' There are many tall tales in ancient history, to be sure, but there are many things that are claimed in ancient history that are not taken literally. For example, Suetonius wrote that messengers from the Gods came down to light Julius Caesar's s funeral pyre. I don't know of any historian who takes that literally, do you?

When an ancient account describes an event that is physically impossible, it's not believed. Can you show that the resurrection is physically possible?