Belief... or lack thereof

[MPat]

It’ll have to wait for next weekend, then… too much work to do at the moment and I’m not sure I can think properly at night.
Remind me!

Are you sure I won’t forget that myself?

“as much as” refers to a quantity.
“indistinguishable” refers to quality… similarity.

e.g.
There are as many girls over there as I have wives.
That girl there is indistinguishable from my wife.

But perhaps I’m doing “English language” wrong… wouldn’t be the first time…

OK, make that change - I don’t see how it saves the argument.

I’m sorry?.. I have no stories?
St. Peter’s story - the guy went as far as want to die in an inverted cross.

9-11 Muslim martyrs - die steering airplanes into buildings.

At least one of these two stories relies on people being convinced of something that’s false and dying for it.
Martyrdom is no evidence for anything, except that people die for their own beliefs. Didn’t I say this already?

OK, did you forget what we were arguing about?

You claimed that evidence for imaginary friends is indistinguishable from evidence for religions. I pointed out that, for starters, religions have martyrdoms and imaginary friends do not. You claimed that “it makes sense” that kids would “suffer punishments” related to imaginary friends. I responded that 1) those punishments do not sound indistinguishable form martyrdoms, 2) you gave no actual evidence of them anyway.

And now you offer me stories that concern… religions.

I guess I should treat that as a concession that your claim (that that evidence for imaginary friends is indistinguishable from evidence for religions) is false.

And no, strength of evidence doesn’t matter - your claim was that evidence itself is indistinguishable. If you meant to say something else, modify your claim. Until then, that’s your claim and it has been disproved.

Indeed they do not.
I just wanted to leave those “figures invented by a mind” as clearly out of the realm of our discussion.

So, in that case arguing that they “might exist” is irrelevant and you can bravely say that imaginary friends do not exist? With all the consequences?

It’s probably just going to be a huge list of things… which I’ll shorten in a brutal way (my style) and end up with something that’s full of holes.
Anyway, next weekend, I’ll try to draft it out, with references to studies so that the premises, at least, have some solid foundation.

Good.

Perhaps the rewording discarded those extra premises? Or maybe I was implying them?
Or maybe… just maybe… I wasn’t making a full argument in a few lines, but a continuation of a conversation, assuming that past things told during this conversation were also part of those premises.

Anyway, that will be made clearer after you finish your draft.

Perhaps, I was going further… here’s a few that are being applied to the business world: businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8

They work the same for religion.

If they “work the same for religion [as for business]”, and that’s a reason to reject religion, it is also a reason to reject business. I hope you go to a shop as rarely, as you go to a church…

And yes, childhood indoctrination is also one such exploitation. Which kid is going to defy the unfalsifiable teachings of their authority figures?

Something tells me an answer will be “you”?

Anyway, I sense an argument here:

1. 
   *]Claims of religion are often offered to kids by authority figures and kids cannot verify those claims. (premise)
   *]When some claims are often offered to kids by authority figures and kids cannot verify those claims, those claims should not be accepted [without personal verification]. (premise)
   *]Claims of religion should not be accepted [without personal verification]. (from 1 and 2)
   
   Would you agree that it is your argument?

 

[MPat]

Still better than no evolution in that direction, I think…

Um, the direction I offered was not toward accuracy, but towards self-delusion…

That works too… on a different level, from what I made work… so both may be right.

Both what? You cited two paragraphs that mention two pairs of things - one mentions logic and intuition, another - “working” intuition and “working” eating.

Oh… you think this is about the distinction between Islam and Catholicism?.. it goes further… supposing one accepts a creator god, there are still many possibilities at how this creator god is, how he desires us to act, and how he has set up any form of afterlife.

That’s what you were asking:

What you claim about logical arguments is so similar to the claim by Muslims that their belief is the most logical one… that leaves me baffled.
Here are two logical forms of reasoning that arrive at somewhat conflicting results. Why?

No, that’s not what I meant… sorry… I meant: proponents of both religions use logical arguments to arrive at their specific religion.

Just two religions. If you are really interested in what you have asked, look at them. If you are not interested in what you have asked - why are you asking?

And even if you want to get an answer to a general question - why don’t you look at the more simple special case (one pair) first?

After all, “divide and conquer” is a good problem solving strategy. Why do you try to use it backwards, substituting a harder problem for a simpler? And it is not the first time…

That is, if you want the answer, why don’t you start with a simple problem? And if you do not want that answer, if you want to keep the problem unsolved - why are you asking? And, even more importantly, why do you want to get no answer?

But, from the harsh reality in plain sight, my first guess would be:

• If there’s some afterlife, there doesn’t seem to be any way of getting info from there to here, so… how did anyone arrive at any description of such an afterlife?

So, again… If you really what to know how one might “arrive at any description of such an afterlife”, read any Gospel - and you will get some hypothesis. And if you do not want to know - why, and why are you asking?

I can… but it’s not the same thing.

It is. You have asked how one (not you, since you do not accept cosmological arguments) can get from some cosmological argument to Christianity. There is an outline telling you just that. If you want to know, read it. If you do not want to know - why, and why are you asking?

Hmm… yeah, magic is that which defies physical causality, or conservation of all the physical properties which are generally conserved… mainly energy.

Good, that can be a definition.

Anyway, how can I be sure that it doesn’t exist?.. I’m not.

In such case there won’t be much left of those:

If I grant step I, then magic is possible, and blah, blah blah… puf God is possible, yes.

Also, “step I” was basic metaphysics…

But I haven’t seen any magic in this world… I have seen no reports by others claiming to have seen such magic… well, no credible reports.

So, “magic” (as you define it) does not exist, as no credible reports exist? And, let me guess, no report is credible, as “magic does not exist”? Looks circular to me…

I think it comes down to the same, but ok. An idea has consequences in the physical macroscopic world.

It is nowhere close to “the same”. If in your “counterexample” we have something actually existing doing something, then it is not really a counterexample to “What does not actually exist doesn’t do anything.”.

If an alternative explanation or reasoning for Step I is found, then all that follows can be brought into question.

Once again, “Step I” is basic metaphysics. How can any guess about start of the Universe from something pre-existing, like “quantum vacuum”, count as “an alternative explanation or reasoning for” basic metaphysics?

Again, this is an alternative stopping point for Step I. If we can’t “reason out” anything, then no philosophizing can peer into that event that brought forth the big bang singularity.

You were claiming you are going to wait until someone “reasons out” something. If, under your hypothesis, “reasoning out” is impossible, such waiting is pointless.

The evidence from those past scientific experiments is never dismissed. It is recorded so we can look at them again and do our own analysis… or to compare against novel methods of gathering the same kind of data.

That is irrelevant as an answer to this:

That ignores what you have to prove: that it is OK to dismiss the evidence that is not commonly used to persuade one that something is true.

And we got there from your claims like this:

The evidence is a bit irrelevant (being all immaterial), when the methodology applied to foster the belief is pretty much equivalent among the several religions.

Those claims, in turn, were trying to explain why you only investigated psychology of belief and not philosophical arguments or miracles.

So, my counterexamples still stand.

The basic premise: God exists.
This is not known, it is believed (by some).
The unknowns count against Catholicism because one of those unknowns is also its basic premise.

“God exists.” is not “a basic premise”. Therefore, everything else falls.

 

[eazyduzit]

Still better than no evolution in that direction, I think…

That works too… on a different level, from what I made work… so both may be right.

Oh… you think this is about the distinction between Islam and Catholicism?.. it goes further… supposing one accepts a creator god, there are still many possibilities at how this creator god is, how he desires us to act, and how he has set up any form of afterlife.

But, from the harsh reality in plain sight, my first guess would be:

• He’s not around.
• He wants us to just survive to the best of our abilities - that should include taking care of our home, the planet.
• If there’s some afterlife, there doesn’t seem to be any way of getting info from there to here, so… how did anyone arrive at any description of such an afterlife?

I can… but it’s not the same thing.

I did!

Hmm… yeah, magic is that which defies physical causality, or conservation of all the physical properties which are generally conserved… mainly energy.
It has always baffled me where the energy comes from for telekinesis, or transformation from one animal to another, or invisibility… the standard magical abilities from fiction… they all baffle me.
More so when we are just talking about “super-heroes” and instead of a fictional world where magic exists… Where does the energy to power the Hulk, or the Flash, or superman come from?

Anyway, how can I be sure that it doesn’t exist?.. I’m not.
I’d really like it to exist. I’d be a prime candidate to become indoctrinated into belief in magic…
But I haven’t seen any magic in this world… I have seen no reports by others claiming to have seen such magic… well, no credible reports.
Some people still try to sell cheap tricks as magic (yogicmiracle.blogspot.pt/2009/03/indian-yogi-subbayah-pullavars.html) and some people still fall for them… and report back that they saw real magic being done with their own eyes, and then that story gets passed on as completely true. The many many charlatans leave a diminished likelihood that actual magic is possible.

I think it comes down to the same, but ok. An idea has consequences in the physical macroscopic world.

The idea in the book.

If an alternative explanation or reasoning for Step I is found, then all that follows can be brought into question.

Again, this is an alternative stopping point for Step I. If we can’t “reason out” anything, then no philosophizing can peer into that event that brought forth the big bang singularity.

The evidence from those past scientific experiments is never dismissed. It is recorded so we can look at them again and do our own analysis… or to compare against novel methods of gathering the same kind of data.

The basic premise: God exists.
This is not known, it is believed (by some).
The unknowns count against Catholicism because one of those unknowns is also its basic premise.
In science, there are questions that are yet unanswered, but the basic premises stand… observation, hypothesis, testing. Whatever comes out, comes out. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong… if it seems right, as long as it can withstand testing, remains as scientific knowledge.

Evolution is a kind of magic, or if you like, a fairy tale for adults. It cannot be demonstrated or repeated in a lab.

BTW, we can be certain about heaven and afterlife because St.Paul went there and returned. (see 2Cor.12:2).

 

[Bradski]

Evolution is a kind of magic, or if you like, a fairy tale for adults. It cannot be demonstrated or repeated in a lab.

Evolution is a subject that is not allowed. It would seem for very good reasons.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

What does that have to do with an intermediary? Please explain your objection to me.

Organised (Christian) religion has, amongst other things, scripture to convey the message of God, and clergy that are required to interpret scripture and to conduct religious celebrations etc. In the context of our discussion, scripture and clergy are ‘intermediaries’ required by organised religion. There are no equivalents in the direct relationship you might have with a spouse, friend or neighbour. There is no written document telling you what to do and no need for someone to help you conduct the relationship.

PRmerger:

Children are analogous to what in religion?

I haven’t the faintest idea. You mentioned children, not me.

 

[PRmerger]

Organised (Christian) religion has, amongst other things, scripture to convey the message of God, and clergy that are required to interpret scripture and to conduct religious celebrations etc. In the context of our discussion, scripture and clergy are ‘intermediaries’ required by organised religion. There are no equivalents in the direct relationship you might have with a spouse, friend or neighbour. There is no written document telling you what to do and no need for someone to help you conduct the relationship

Well, unless your relationship with your wife consists of you standing before her naked, and staring into her eyes as your only form of communication, you do have all of the above analogs.

Your communication with her, either in written form or oral form is analogous to Scripture and Tradition.

Your meals with her are analogous to the Divine Liturgy.

Your one flesh union with her is analogous to the Holy Eucharist.

Her father, who brought her to you through his act of love with her mother, is analogous to the priest.

So it’s odd that you would object to something which you participate in yourself.

(Again, think in the abstract here–there is no need to equivocate with nonsequiturs like, “Well, her dad actually did NOT love her mom” or “We have never written a single word to each other”)

Also, all analogies break down at some point, so please do not quibble.

You must see the point that any spousal relationship mimics a religious relationship with God.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . if we all had a relationship with God in the same way that we can have a relationship with our spouse, a neighbour, or the woman that works in the local shop, then we would not need organised religion as it exists today. . .

:twocents:

God transcends us, and as the Trinity, individual personhood, existing as Love Itself.

The Church is analogous to being His bride.
The Church again, is mankind in right relation to God and within its members.

We are each an expression of humanity, which at the same time encompasses all of us, as we exist relating to one another, and grounded in the one Source from whom the entire universe springs.

There is no individual heaven, but rather a participation of all creation in praise of the glory that is God’s, giving of themselves over to the Father, who brings it all into existence.

That’s what we are doing here as we confess our love, our fears, our anger, confusion to one other and to God, who is ever awake, knowing every aspect of who we are, guiding us back to His love.

 

[PRmerger]

Following the logic of the possibility of the multiverse and using reason to come to a decision (hey, it looks like it’s a distinct possibility), is relatively straightforward.

Okay!

I think when you first came to CAFs you were someone who proposed that God’s existence can’t be proven with empirical testing, therefore you were an atheist. Philosophical arguments were off the table because, well, there were philosophical.

But now I think you are of the mindset that philosophical, logical, reasoned arguments ARE a valid epistemology.

And that is what we Believers use to come to a reasoned belief in the existence of God.

Depends which is opened first. I almost certainly drink too much of both (let’s not mention whisky, shall we?).

Ah. As the saying goes: "The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God.”

I think the man who seeks enjoyment in any libertine pursuit is unconsciously looking for God.

So either an addict, unfulfilled…or a Believer, fulfilled and sated.

 

[PRmerger]

Care to share the extra evidence that exists for God and not for the multiverse?

Firstly, why don’t you show me what evidence there is for the multiverse?

And it needs to be able to be tested, since testing of hypotheses is how science demonstrates truth.

 

[PRmerger]

No consciousness pre-existing to the Universe?

That’s not what I’ve been reading till now…

Oh. You’re saying that God has always existed…and this means what, again, as far as the double standard you’re embracing?

“I believe that the multiverse could exist, even though there’s no evidence for its existence!”

And

“I won’t believe in God’s existence because there’s no evidence for his existence!”

You don’t see that as a double standard because God has always existed?

Huh?

 

[pocaracas]

Are you sure I won’t forget that myself?

hehe… We’ll see.

OK, make that change - I don’t see how it saves the argument.

OK, did you forget what we were arguing about?

You claimed that evidence for imaginary friends is indistinguishable from evidence for religions. I pointed out that, for starters, religions have martyrdoms and imaginary friends do not. You claimed that “it makes sense” that kids would “suffer punishments” related to imaginary friends. I responded that 1) those punishments do not sound indistinguishable form martyrdoms, 2) you gave no actual evidence of them anyway.

And now you offer me stories that concern… religions.

I guess I should treat that as a concession that your claim (that that evidence for imaginary friends is indistinguishable from evidence for religions) is false.

And no, strength of evidence doesn’t matter - your claim was that evidence itself is indistinguishable. If you meant to say something else, modify your claim. Until then, that’s your claim and it has been disproved.

The evidence for the existence of imaginary friends is pretty much indistinguishable from the evidence for the existence of God… I think that’s more or less how I said it.

You, for some reason brought forth martyrs… I tried to explain how their conviction of the reality of God is no evidence for the actual existence of God.
A conviction which is indistinguishable from a child’s conviction of the reality of her imaginary friend.
From the outside, both claims of the reality of such beings are identical.

Children with such friends don’t usually get in a situation where someone will kill them unless they recant their claim of how real that imaginary friend is… so… yeah… perhaps martyrs are not a valid counter-example, huh?

So, in that case arguing that they “might exist” is irrelevant and you can bravely say that imaginary friends do not exist? With all the consequences?

The consequences of that… well… one would be that I’d say that God does not exist, for it is also a product of the human brain at work.
Somewhat consistent of me being an atheist, and with everything I’ve been saying about psychology.

If they “work the same for religion [as for business]”, and that’s a reason to reject religion, it is also a reason to reject business. I hope you go to a shop as rarely, as you go to a church…

Sometimes… you make the weirdest leaps… how did you get there?!
Good thing businesses don’t make a habit of relying on the existence of something that seems indistinguishable from imaginary friends, huh?

Something tells me an answer will be “you”?

Anyway, I sense an argument here:

1. 
   *]Claims of religion are often offered to kids by authority figures and kids cannot verify those claims. (premise)
   *]When some claims are often offered to kids by authority figures and kids cannot verify those claims, those claims should not be accepted [without personal verification]. (premise)
   *]Claims of religion should not be accepted [without personal verification]. (from 1 and 2)
   
   Would you agree that it is your argument?

1. 
   It’s a part of it, yes…
   I guess I’ll steal some of this wording on my weekend attempt at drafting the big argument.
   
   ##################
   

   Um, the direction I offered was not toward accuracy, but towards self-delusion…

   It’s still better to have the self-delusion of some security against known self-delusionary methods, than nothing.
   Both accuracy and, maybe, self-delusion.
   

   Both what? You cited two paragraphs that mention two pairs of things - one mentions logic and intuition, another - “working” intuition and “working” eating.

   Oh… lol… “both” the notions we proposed about the peach kernel eating preventing sickness. They both work.
   

   That’s what you were asking:
   
   Just two religions. If you are really interested in what you have asked, look at them. If you are not interested in what you have asked - why are you asking?
   
   And even if you want to get an answer to a general question - why don’t you look at the more simple special case (one pair) first?
   
   After all, “divide and conquer” is a good problem solving strategy. Why do you try to use it backwards, substituting a harder problem for a simpler? And it is not the first time…
   
   That is, if you want the answer, why don’t you start with a simple problem? And if you do not want that answer, if you want to keep the problem unsolved - why are you asking? And, even more importantly, why do you want to get no answer?

   You’re right… I got waylaid by something I wrote about “looking at them all individually” and thought I meant all religions there… my bad.
   

   So, again… If you really what to know how one might “arrive at any description of such an afterlife”, read any Gospel - and you will get some hypothesis. And if you do not want to know - why, and why are you asking?

   Yes, I want to know… but the gospels only lay it out there… they don’t say how they got to that info.
   But, of course, if you accept that Jesus is a part of God, then anything that he says is representative of divine knowledge, so it would contain such information.
   
   [cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

It is. You have asked how one (not you, since you do not accept cosmological arguments) can get from some cosmological argument to Christianity. There is an outline telling you just that. If you want to know, read it. If you do not want to know - why, and why are you asking?

It’s like reading fiction… one has to willingly suspend disbelief.
It’s not the same thing as reading about reality.

In such case there won’t be much left of those:

Also, “step I” was basic metaphysics…

Meta… indeed.

So, “magic” (as you define it) does not exist, as no credible reports exist? And, let me guess, no report is credible, as “magic does not exist”? Looks circular to me…

The same applies for anything else that comes out of human imagination… unicorns, dragons, fairies, leprechauns, nymphs, the pyramids of Giza, UFOs, Aliens, etc…

Until some physical verification is achieved, those things are considered not to exist.

It is nowhere close to “the same”. If in your “counterexample” we have something actually existing doing something, then it is not really a counterexample to “What does not actually exist doesn’t do anything.”.

That may be why I never agreed to it:

Also, let’s remember that you couldn’t agree that things that do not exist can’t do anything without reservation.

Once again, “Step I” is basic metaphysics. How can any guess about start of the Universe from something pre-existing, like “quantum vacuum”, count as “an alternative explanation or reasoning for” basic metaphysics?

Because that alternative explanation is based on actual physics.

You were claiming you are going to wait until someone “reasons out” something. If, under your hypothesis, “reasoning out” is impossible, such waiting is pointless.

Perhaps… Still, I may be wrong, so I wait.

Those claims, in turn, were trying to explain why you only investigated psychology of belief and not philosophical arguments or miracles.

So, my counterexamples still stand.

As always, something palpable, testable, even something as finicky as psychology, is far more likely to be correct than philosophical arguments or miracles.
Immaterial evidence for religion carries much less weight than statistical psychological studies done on actual people.
I’m sorry, but that’s how things are.

Take the example of the very reasonable existence of aether, the medium where electro-magnetic waves travel… turned out not to exist, no matter how many philosophical arguments existed for its existence… and they certainly did exist. There’s a cautionary tale…

“God exists.” is not “a basic premise”. Therefore, everything else falls.

LOL! Yes it is.
Remember, people who come up with arguments for the existence of God start out considering that the result is possible… most, if not all, are even convinced of it.
Certainly, that adds a bit of bias to the argument’s persuasiveness… so it’s a premise to accepting the things you’re setting out to do… a very basic premise. Like when all my cooking tastes wonderful (except when it gets burnt).
Psychology at work, again.

 

[pocaracas]

Evolution is a kind of magic, or if you like, a fairy tale for adults. It cannot be demonstrated or repeated in a lab.

Indeed… the process of evolution cannot be replicated in the lab, for it requires way too much time to accomplish that which you would consider to be evolution.
In reality, speciation has been observed in a particular species of fruit flies. It’s a somewhat common event, because that’s one of the most studies species.

However, the theory of evolution (or it’s current equivalent - modern evolutionary synthesis) provides an explanation to those speciation events, and the overview that is visible in fossils found in differently aged layers of rock.

BTW, we can be certain about heaven and afterlife because St.Paul went there and returned. (see 2Cor.12:2).

So… we can also be certain about the Force because Luke could move things with his mind, right?
How can you be certain of anything written by that character?

 

[pocaracas]

Also, all analogies break down at some point, so please do not quibble.

Glad to have contributed to that acknowledgement!

 

[PRmerger]

. But as far as God goes, as I said, it’s all or nothing.

I really don’t understand this type of thinking.

It’s like saying that since you can’t understand how to use calculus to figure out the area under the parabola, you’re going to reject 2+2 = 4.

Why not just start with whether God exists, and the arguments that you have examined and why they don’t move you.

It’s otiose to talk about why God has created purgatory, meth, conjoined twins, bad beer, radishes, until you accept that God actually exists.

There are too many boxes to be ticked and if one remains unticked, then that’s the end of it.

That’s like saying that since your kindergartner can’t read Shakespeare, he shouldn’t read at all.

 

[PRmerger]

And as regards the totality of everything not actually being made for us, consider another analogy.

B: I’ve made something for you. It’s behind that wall.
P: Great, let’s go get it.
B: Ah, you can’t. Not possible.
P: Can I see it?
B: Nope. Sorry.
P: Well, OK, what is it?
B: Well, I can’t tell you that either.
P: Hmmm. Okey Dokey. So what does it do?
B: Effectively nothing.
P: Well, it can’t be very big.
B: No, it’s actually more than everything you have.

Tell me that’s not completely illogical.

Actually, if it exists I do believe it’s for us.

As I already stated, it’s there for us to try to apprehend its existence. Our intellects are given a challenge.

We can contemplate the sheer magnificence of the Creator through the existence of the MV.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m not being clear enough. I’m saying that you have to believe all the things associated with God before you can believe in Him (not including homosexuality or gay marriage). I can’t say I believe in Him if I don’t think he created everything. I can’t if I don’t believe in a soul. If I don’t believe in the resurrection, or heaven or a virgin birth, or miracles or the Holy Spirit. And that’s discounting all what I might call circumstantial evidence – saints dying for Him, 500 witnesses, verbatim accounts of the dead being raised. The more you throw into the mix, the more there one is expected to believe (and I don’t believe any of it).

Understood.

But you can’t reject the arguments for the existence of God because you don’t believe in a virgin birth.

Let’s start with the existence of God arguments first.

And the best one for me is: something can’t come from nothing.

Atheism needs an explanation for this.

Whatever begins to exist needs an explanation.

Good Lord, no. If I had some epiphany on the way home tonight and I discovered God, then I’m afraid Catholicism wouldn’t get a look in. My views on abortion and gay marriage wouldn’t change. I simply argue that you are misinterpreting what God expects.

I’d love to talk about abortion with you. Have we done this before?

When do you believe that the thing inside the woman becomes a human being?

Or do you believe that it is a human person in the womb but it’s ok to abort because of some other reason which trumps the right of the human being to live?

If I can’t accept all those things I listed above (and more) I would not be able to believe in God. If I said I did believe in Him, then I would be saying that I believe in Him and THEREFORE I have to accept them. That’s not the way to do things. You go where the evidence leads you.

You don’t take that, how shall I say, leap of faith and then go back to re-evaluate the evidence on that basis. Well, I don’t. It’s impossible for me to do it.

 

[Bradski]

But you can’t reject the arguments for the existence of God because you don’t believe in a virgin birth.

Are you saying that I can believe in the same God as you if I don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin? That He was born entirely naturally? That Joseph was His father and that He was entirely mortal? Seriously?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that I can believe in the same God as you if I don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin? That He was born entirely naturally? That Joseph was His father and that He was entirely mortal? Seriously?

Well, yes. A qualified yes, but a yes nonetheless.

 

[Bradski]

Well, yes. A qualified yes, but a yes nonetheless.

OK, but we’ll have to pass on Catholicism. It’s obviously not correct in that case. And Jesus a mortal prophet?

I’m already heading towards Islam. I wonder what they’ve got. Something about moon cleaving and flying horses, I think. Sounds a bit dodgy. Should I check it out?