 six sources now for the resurrection having occurred. But going back to the hard appearances, I couldn't buy into that either. How can you test in a lab for a miracle? If I grow a finger back in a lab, you're going to say that there's a possibility to call it a miracle? We don't get to call it a miracle. We have an example where someone's finger was cut off, and it grew back in front of us. And now we begin exploring to try to find what the best explanation is. Maybe God did it. But until somebody demonstrates the link, the evidence that links the regrowth of your finger with a God, you don't get to say that that is the cause. This is all about connecting observed facts with proposed explanations. You have a proposed explanation that there's a God, but you don't have the linking evidence that shows that that is in fact the cause. And what's worse is that you can't even show the effect. You can't show a resurrection, getting crucified, being stuck in the ground for a day and a half, and then walking back out of it. So Christianity is in a position where it can't demonstrate an effect and is proposing the cause for those. If you believe that there's a God that wants you to act in a certain way and you do, it's your belief that is driving that act, not the truth of your belief.