Hitler.

[Gofer Blue]

Also, the existence of an empty tomb does not prove the resurrection. It merely proves that his tomb was empty.

As this was a one-off historical event, it is not possible to repeat it to prove that it happened, unlike say a new scientific discovery. Hence I think you have to apply the same criteria that apply in a court of law i.e. the event simply has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is a well established principle.

I found this reference: https://thedefenders.net/blogs/beyond-reasonable-doubt/ which states that:

"The prosecution is required to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence presented must be so convincing that no reasonable person could have any doubts about the defendant’s guilt. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt falls entirely on the prosecution. It must present strong and convincing evidence that leaves no room for any reasonable alternative explanations".

The key sentence I think is: it must present strong and convincing evidence that leaves no room for any reasonable alternative explanations".

Thus your statement "the existence of an empty tomb does not prove the resurrection" would be true if there was no other evidence. IMO if you look at the other evidence, then that does indeed leave no room for any reasonable alternative explanations.