Most arguments about the resurrection never reach the evidence at all. They stall on a prior assumption: that miracles are impossible in principle, so no amount of testimony could ever count. Written for the Biola course on the resurrection, this paper takes that objection first.
I examine the philosophical case against miracles and argue that a blanket dismissal of the miraculous is itself a claim about what kind of universe we live in, smuggled in as though it were a neutral scientific starting point. Set that assumption aside and the historical case can be weighed on its own terms: the crucifixion and death of Jesus, the empty tomb, the post‑mortem appearances, and the sudden transformation of the earliest disciples.
The conclusion is that the resurrection is the best explanation of a cluster of facts that even sceptical historians grant. It is the paper behind my talk Why Believe in the Resurrection?, which is the one I get asked for most.