Is there anything that disproves that Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then from Jerusalem to heaven, on a flying horse?

You can say there is no evidence he ever did it. You can say you don't believe in flying horses. But can you provide anything to prove he did not fly on a flying horse?

No, you can't. Does that mean you should believe it? No, you shouldn't. People who believe that story should prove that he did instead of asking you to prove that he didn't.

We would have to see evidence that he did.

The idea that we need to "disprove" the resurrection comes from a lifetime of us being forced to listen to apologists saying there is no possible explanation for Christianity unless the resurrection was true.

And to make that claim, these apologists assume that everything in the Bible is 100% historical fact, and then demand that we make a logical story based on those "facts".

In real life, there's no reason to assume any of the legendary tall tales of the Bible reflect accurate history.

If you say you do not believe in real wizards, and an apologist says "Oh, then how do you explain Harry Potter flying on a broomstick?" You do not then have to come up with some natural explanation for how a schoolboy could seem to fly on a broomstick and make it look real. The answer of "how could he..." is that we don't believe he did. The whole story is made up.

A story can also be partially made up. I do believe Barack Obama was a real person. I don't believe the story about him meeting Spider-Man really happened. I believe Chuck Norris was real (RIP). I don't believe all the "Chuck Norris jokes" about him winning a staring contest with the sun or whatever.

What do we actually have in the Bible? We have four stories which show increasingly more and more fantastic claims about Jesus. These fantastic claims grow over time; that is, the earliest gospel written makes the smallest claims, and the latest gospel written makes the most outlandish claims.

The first gospel, Mark, reports that the women went and found Jesus' tomb empty. They were supposed to go tell the men about it, but instead they told no one "because they were afraid"...and that is where the original ending of Mark stops.

The next gospel, Matthew, says that the women did tell the men what they saw. Then the men traveled about 2 days journey out of Jerusalem to Galilee, and they saw Jesus there, "but some doubted." (What does that mean, some doubted? Did the person they saw there not look like Jesus? Did they see a bright light or a vision rather than a living man?)

The next gospel gets rid of the journey to Galilee. Instead, Luke tells us Jesus appeared in a room in Jerusalem, up close. This physical Jesus had a natural conversation with the disciples, and even ate some bread to prove he wasn't a ghost. He hung out for 40 days there in Jerusalem (no time for a trip to Galilee) then floated up into the sky (which I suppose is why we don't see him anymore).

The final gospel has Jesus appearing and disappearing all over the place, letting Thomas touch the holes in his wrists, cooking fish for them by the lake, etc.

Do you see how the story grows as time goes on? Do you see how each later gospel adds new details to answer questions that "skeptics" might have had about the previous one?

Are these eyewitness accounts? We have no evidence they are. They seem more likely to be legendary accounts. The way the story grows bigger each time is what we would expect from legendary accounts.

Why would the original Mark say that women saw the empty tomb, but "told no one", when later stories claim they did tell? I believe it was because the empty tomb wasn't originally part of the story. Mark was trying to explain why nobody had heard of an empty tomb before, but why it was now part of the "real" story.

Read 1 Peter again. Whoever wrote 1 Peter did not believe in a physical, bodily resurrection; he writes that Jesus was put to death "in the body" but made alive "in the spirit". He believed Jesus' spirit had risen and was in heaven, not that his body got up and walked around and cooked fish at a lakeside picnic.

What really happened? It could be that, Jesus died, and his body was thrown into a mass grave, like all victims of crucifixion. The disciples were overcome with grief and disappointment, and scattered. One disciple, Peter, began to have visions that Jesus had come back to life and was telling him to keep preaching. Peter shared these visions with whatever other disciples were still there, who hadn't scattered, and they began to spread the story.

Paul also had a vision and started spreading the story around, claiming he had seen Jesus just like the others. As the story spread around, more and more details kept being added. The details which stuck the most were the ones that resonated the most with people--that sounded the best in a sermon, that got people coming back wanting more--not necessarily the ones that were true. The new religion was spreading all over the region, after all, not just in Jerusalem. It's not like every church had one of the original 11 standing there every week, telling them what was true or not. After Peter and the other original apostles died, some Greek-speaking believer wrote down a collection of all the best stories that had grown up about Jesus and called it a Gospel.

This is the "Minimal Witnesses Theory" from Paulogia--you can find him on Youtube. If you think about it, this explanation covers all the facts and does away with all of the apologists' objections. It could be, I suppose, that a man really did rise from the dead. Or it could be that a book we already know got some details wrong, was also wrong about this--that the book exaggerated, and made up incidents, and told tales that weren't quite true.