The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

First of all, it doesn't matter how many sources claimed that the resurrection occurred; it cannot physically have happened and therefore the sources are wrong. It may also be worth noting that these works have probably been translated many times, and the way we interpret them may not be as the authors intended. We can safely deduce that if they really mean to say the resurrection occurred, they definitely must be wrong. Have the laws of science ever previously been violated? No they certainly haven't, so why should we believe they were in this case, based on anecdotal evidence. Looking at any ancient accounts of history, they may be true or they may not be, or perhaps they have some truth. The laws of physics however, cannot be inaccurate, by virtue of the universe we are currently in! We are here, now alive in this world, because of the laws of physics, they cannot be wrong per se. By definition. Here is the situation: either the ancient text is wrong or everything we know about science has lost its integrity. Which is more likely? Clinging to ancient writing in the face of certain knowledge is insanely irrational and even quite pernicious. My opponent thinks it is my place to prove otherwise. That is absolutely ridiculous! You are claiming that the laws of physics were violated; you are making a massive claim and supporting it with ancient writing. Massive claims like that require enormous evidence, and no ancient writing will suffice. As for the whole business of the empty tomb. This is an incredibly weak argument. You are assuming that the events depicted in the concerned sources did indeed occur. And even if they did, that certainly doesn't prove that the laws of physics were violated! There are many cases that police and detectives around the world have to deal with where the situation is very complex and they can take decades to solve. We wouldn't dream of concluding that the laws of physics could be suspended because we do not know the whole truth. Like I have said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And ancient mystery that has not been shown to be true, goes absolutely no way to doing this. My opponent also mentions the so-called supernatural realm, which, in my opinion is an insult to human intelligence. Supernatural? Seriously? There is no certain evidence for anything supernatural whatsoever. Unless you can prove that the supernatural realm exists, you can't use it in your favour. When I said that the resurrection defied everything we know about science, I didn't mean it violates each and every law of science, I meant in violates the principles of science. We know that the laws can't be suspended on request; the resurrection violates this. 'It is up to my opponent to prove he doesn't exist.' What?! You have a degree, credit me with some intelligence! You are asserting the existence of something, it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to disprove it. If that were the case, we would have to disprove the existence of tooth-fairies and pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. You can't prove that something doesn't exist! You can justify believing in anything by saying that! I agree that we should draw conclusions from evidence and reason. But if a conclusion points to something ridiculous, like the laws of physics went on a coffee break for 5 minutes, then we need to take a course in how to infer successfully, or, as is more likely, the evidence is so anecdotal that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn. If you can't prove that the bible is definitely true, then that undermines any conclusions you draw from it. When the conclusions lead to impossibilities, that strengthens my view that the bible is not an accurate account of history.