Because it doesn’t work! Sorry, couldn’t resist.
And is there anything hidden behind that joke? What exactly do you mean by “work” here?
Also, there are ways to prove that a video is unedited. That’s why courts approve their admittance into evidence. We can also verify chain of custody and authorship for video much better than ancient texts.
So, you will just repeat that there is a way that a video couldn’t have been faked without telling us what it is?
Also, courts use the evidence that is available and do not demand that it would be “impossible to fake” (they find it is sufficient that evidence hasn’t been faked, even if it could have been - in fact, I suspect that the court would presume that evidence hasn’t been faked). After all, it is clear that witness testimony is not “unfakable”, but courts do take it into account. You, on the other hand, have a much higher standard (and, I’d say, an unreasonably high standard).
OK. What if I said, “hey, MPat: I speak for God. That’s right: I’m the mouthpiece of God on earth. I’m infallible on matters of faith and morals, and I’ve never contradicted myself. So, you better believe everything I tell you to believe, or you’re on the outs with God. Why? Cuz I say so.”
Is that convincing to you? Wouldn’t you want to see some proof that I’m God’s official spokesman? Isn’t outrageous for me to claim something like that? Who the heck am I, a pumpkincookie, to claim to speak for God? The hubris is staggering.
I think you misunderstood. I have asked you to explain your position in more detail. Instead you are trying to get me to agree with it - when it is not completely clear what your position actually is.
I do believe the St. Januarius “miracle” could be faked quite easily, and is a giant fraud perpetrated against simpletons for the purpose of robbing them.
So, in other words, you have no idea how exactly this miracle could be faked (otherwise you would have given a way to do so), but keep claiming that it could - maybe with the hope that someone will be a “simpleton” and be persuaded?
However, bone-fide limb-regrowth captured on video could NOT easily be faked (assuming the video has been verified by experts to be genuine).
If I saw the miracle I described with my own eyes, I would definitely convert. If I saw it on video, I’d want to make sure it was genuine, but if it were, I would convert.
So, just a testimony of a witness that obviously has a conflict of interest - yourself?
For what you have proved is (at best) that it would be reasonable for you to convert under given conditions. But that’s the easy part: the hard part is proving that you would actually act reasonably. It is not enough to say that you feel you would do so: you might be biased on this point (people generally prefer to think they are reasonable).
So, as we can see, this your “proof” wouldn’t work that well even if we would agree to use a double standard. But we do not - so, let’s wait for evidence (showing that you would act reasonably) that would be “impossible to fake”.
Or, of course, you can explain why different standard is reasonable here (but no, “I can’t meet it [but it’s OK that others can’t].” is not a good explanation).
