 When your methodology gets debunked, it's not up to the opponent to present a methodology that would confirm the supernatural. I have no methodology that would confirm the supernatural. Neither does anybody else. You presented your case for why you find these texts reliable. I exposed where the problem is. You don't then get to say, well, have you got a better one? Because that suggests that you're willing to stick with a flawed methodology until somebody comes along with a better one. It's not my job or anybody else's job to fix the foundation of your beliefs. That's your job. To be a skeptic is good. A skeptic is someone who questions. But to be a cynic is horrendous. Because cynicism gets us nowhere. And Matt, you have just displayed tremendous cynicism because what you've done is, you've said, these are the problems with your methodology. And I agree with you. There are problems to my methodology. But Matt, none of us has exhaustive knowledge in any area of life. We as human beings cannot prove anything.