There is demonstration, and then there’s rejection. What appears in this question is simply a rejection of anything which appears to violate Einstein and Newton.
In which case it amounts to trying to prove a negative, i.e. proving that nothing of the sort could possibly happen, i.e. there is no supra-normal entity capable of manipulating His own creation.
Three accounts available around the turn of the 20th to 21st Centuries attest (mentioning but not including the necessary many thousands of pages of real research) that an exhaustive search of all documents from the the First Century CE makes a strong Occam’s Razor case that either Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, not to matter the trifling bits about feeding thousands and healing anyone who touched his garments, OR an enormous number of deeply improbably things would have had to align. Three articulate, bright atheists and one Muslim with multiple advanced degrees researched the First Century, including any material that bore on Jewish prophets and historical figures, including utterly disinterested pagan writers. They dealt with that era’s treatment of women and women’s accounts. All four of these men came to realize that the only respectable conclusion was that Jesus came for the purpose he said he came for.
One who axiomatically denies the possibility of a supra-normal (divine) Being acting on this world is also one who, on faith alone, accepts a cascade of illogical coincidences and improbable events and non-events. An agnostic can “logically” say “I don’t know” but for an atheist to maintain his/her position requires an actual religious belief, “against all textual evidence.”
Seeking Allah Finding Jesus; Nabil Q’reshi
Cold Case Christianity; J. Warner Wallace
The Case for Christ; Lee Strobel