I am going to demonstrate with completely sound reasoning why the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that Chippy the squirrel rose from the dead.
There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:
1. Chippy's burial
2. The discovery of the empty tomb
3. His post-mortem appearances
4. The origin of a few people's belief in his resurrection
Re-formulating William Lane Craig's 4 Facts Resurrection Argument
There are other claims of resurrection, however, including the claim of Christians that Jesus rose from the dead after his death on the cross.
From Chris Hallquist comes this: Jesus' Resurrection, Debunked in One Page [pdf]. Hallquist says that it is "directed at Evangelical Christians who claim the resurrection can be proven on historical grounds." (from a comment here).
Among Evangelical Christians, it’s become popular to claim that Jesus’ resurrection can be proved with historical evidence. This is nonsense. Here’s why:
1. There is no evidence for the resurrection outside the Bible. Non-Christian historical references to Jesus don’t occur until about six decades after the time when Biblical scholars think he probably died. When these non-Christian sources refer to Jesus’ miracles, there’s no reason to see them as anything more than a report of what Christians of the time believed.
2. There is little evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or based directly on eyewitness accounts. Most of what the Bible says about Jesus’ life and supposed resurrection is in the first four books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (a.k.a. the Gospels). But Biblical scholars now agree these books were originally anonymous, their names added later. The traditional Christian claims about who wrote them is now widely doubted by scholars.
3. This means that the Gospels can’t be trusted as evidence for miracles. Imagine someone trying to convert you to another religion based on the “proof” of the miracles worked by the religion’s founder… in the form of a handful of anonymous tracts recounting his life. Would you accept that “proof”? Of course not. Among other things, the stories could just be legends.