Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[Aloysium]

. . . It’s highly unusual for anyone to claim that a single statistical result is significant. . . Every day there’s a study which statistically “proves” beer (say) is good for the health, only to be followed tomorrow by one which statistically “proves” the opposite. We all know that we ought to see many independent studies before we can take statistical claims seriously. But you made a claim from a single paper, short-cutting all the corroborating studies normally required. so either you’re a world-class expert on medical statistics. Or you’re not. . . if it involves God doing the bidding of a computer, as per the BMJ paper, then it’s still a joke. . . .That’s not what I’ve been arguing. I’m being told that due to someone of unknown faith saying a few words over a computer listing, God retroactively had those the computer randomly picked get well sooner several years previously. Now to me that procedure seems designed to make a joke of religion. If God paid so much attention to a computer then there would be no point whatsoever in your Church existing. I think you guys leaped before you looked. You thought the paper was evidence for your beliefs, when if you’d only been a bit more skeptical, and on your guard against confirmation bias, you would have seen it for what it is, a neat little bit of festive humor.

:banghead:

Let’s give my head another whack at the wall.

No better place to start than the end.

And, while it defeats the purpose of a joke to engage in its analysis, why not, since it appears to have gone over some people’s heads. They ain’t laughing at the right point.

The festive humor is actually two-sided, a sort of mean-spirited cynicism, built on burst promise-balloons of Santa-hopes on one hand, and on the other a joyful recognition of Someone who moves everywhere, behind the scenes, in full view. My first reading of the article elicited a hearty laugh, followed by tears of joy. The more I meditate on the why’s of such odd behaviour, the more I am convinced that it constitutes an opportunity for God to smile and give a wink to those of us who are scientifically inclined.

While scientific research can cause the imagination to soar in its contemplation of the glory of God as it is revealed in His creation, for the most part, to the chagrin of those who abhor such descriptions, it is merely a form of black magic, twisting matter to serve the interests of pride, greed, control, and pleasure.

To find the transcendent peeking through, oh joy!

Pretty much everyone with whom I have discussed this study, asked the same question. “However did he dream this up?” Precisely! It points towards the source of creativity, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, understanding and wonder.

It suggests that ultimately, things are good. We have our crosses, but they are the means by which, in their overcoming, we are able to choose love. There is so much joy and happiness to be had, even in this world.

The commentary on this thread hasn’t been about a scientific study proving or disproving the power of prayer, the reality of miracles, or the existence of God. Any such “proof” is found in our hearts, within our actual relationship with God. What the discussion demonstrates, among other things, is how it is all about the interpretation. One chooses whether or not to open one’s heart and mind, to cast oneself into the depths of existence, to seek God who speaks to us through everything. But, skepticism is so alluring, offering a safe comfortable, if not dry and empty, view. And, there is a modicum of sadistic pleasure to be found in ridiculing others, athough this is more a projection of shame and embarrassment over one’s own ignorance.

Every moment is significant and there is nothing in which we cannot see the hand of God. One doesn’t have to be a medical researcher. Perhaps that qualification may make it more difficult to see what is there, procedures and theories distorting reality into the expected.

Miracles are everywhere as part of one grand miracle that is creation, revealing the glory of God. He reaches into time, all of which exists within the ocean of His boundless compassion. His will is to bring us into eternal communion. Miracles are His response to our needs, whether or not they are subsequent to our prayers, reminders of His love and healing grace when our faith is waning and we find ourselves without direction.

Long winded for sure, but that didn’t hurt at all. It was fun actually.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m too despondent of the dearth of critical thinking in this thread to work up any enthusiasm to reply any more.

Ad hominem…

 

[inocente]

:banghead:

Let’s give my head another whack at the wall.

No better place to start than the end.

And, while it defeats the purpose of a joke to engage in its analysis, why not, since it appears to have gone over some people’s heads. They ain’t laughing at the right point.

The festive humor is actually two-sided, a sort of mean-spirited cynicism, built on burst promise-balloons of Santa-hopes on one hand, and on the other a joyful recognition of Someone who moves everywhere, behind the scenes, in full view. My first reading of the article elicited a hearty laugh, followed by tears of joy. The more I meditate on the why’s of such odd behaviour, the more I am convinced that it constitutes an opportunity for God to smile and give a wink to those of us who are scientifically inclined.

While scientific research can cause the imagination to soar in its contemplation of the glory of God as it is revealed in His creation, for the most part, to the chagrin of those who abhor such descriptions, it is merely a form of black magic, twisting matter to serve the interests of pride, greed, control, and pleasure.

To find the transcendent peeking through, oh joy!

Pretty much everyone with whom I have discussed this study, asked the same question. “However did he dream this up?” Precisely! It points towards the source of creativity, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, understanding and wonder.

It suggests that ultimately, things are good. We have our crosses, but they are the means by which, in their overcoming, we are able to choose love. There is so much joy and happiness to be had, even in this world.

The commentary on this thread hasn’t been about a scientific study proving or disproving the power of prayer, the reality of miracles, or the existence of God. Any such “proof” is found in our hearts, within our actual relationship with God. What the discussion demonstrates, among other things, is how it is all about the interpretation. One chooses whether or not to open one’s heart and mind, to cast oneself into the depths of existence, to seek God who speaks to us through everything. But, skepticism is so alluring, offering a safe comfortable, if not dry and empty, view. And, there is a modicum of sadistic pleasure to be found in ridiculing others, athough this is more a projection of shame and embarrassment over one’s own ignorance.

Every moment is significant and there is nothing in which we cannot see the hand of God. One doesn’t have to be a medical researcher. Perhaps that qualification may make it more difficult to see what is there, procedures and theories distorting reality into the expected.

Miracles are everywhere as part of one grand miracle that is creation, revealing the glory of God. He reaches into time, all of which exists within the ocean of His boundless compassion. His will is to bring us into eternal communion. Miracles are His response to our needs, whether or not they are subsequent to our prayers, reminders of His love and healing grace when our faith is waning and we find ourselves without direction.

Long winded for sure, but that didn’t hurt at all. It was fun actually.

Which reminds me. “Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings.”

Perhaps some people spend their lives thinking beautiful thoughts, looking down from their ivory towers. “From a distance we all have enough, and no one is in need. And there are no guns, no bombs and no disease, no hungry mouths to feed.”

Perhaps there are others who won’t retreat from reality, or who don’t have that luxury.

“If I had a boat, I’d go out on the ocean, and if I had a pony, I’d ride him on my boat.
And we could all together go out on the ocean, I said me upon my pony on my boat”

To which kinky won commented “One of my husband’s fav songs. He used to build boats before becoming disabled. When he dies I will have him creamated and put him in a paper boat and set it on fire in the Gulf. I won’t burn his kayak”

Which reminds me. Beautiful thoughts don’t make reality disappear.

(Lyrics by Rodgers and Hammerstein, Julie Gold, Lyle Lovett respectively)

 

[Wesrock]

Which reminds me. “Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings.”

Perhaps some people spend their lives thinking beautiful thoughts, looking down from their ivory towers. “From a distance we all have enough, and no one is in need. And there are no guns, no bombs and no disease, no hungry mouths to feed.”

Perhaps there are others who won’t retreat from reality, or who don’t have that luxury.

“If I had a boat, I’d go out on the ocean, and if I had a pony, I’d ride him on my boat.
And we could all together go out on the ocean, I said me upon my pony on my boat”

To which kinky won commented “One of my husband’s fav songs. He used to build boats before becoming disabled. When he dies I will have him creamated and put him in a paper boat and set it on fire in the Gulf. I won’t burn his kayak”

Which reminds me. Beautiful thoughts don’t make reality disappear.

(Lyrics by Rodgers and Hammerstein, Julie Gold, Lyle Lovett respectively)

Are you saying reality isn’t beautiful?

 

[inocente]

Are you saying reality isn’t beautiful?

Depends on which child is asking.

“Kids can have fun with Talking Tom in each McDonald’s® Happy Meal® through September 22. At participating McDonald’s. While supplies last.” - happymeal.com/

“Diarrhoea is one of the leading causes of death among children under five globally. More than one in ten child deaths – about 800,000 each year – is due to diarrhoea.” - who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/9789241598415/en/

 

[Wesrock]

So it’s subjective, then.

 

[tonyrey]

:banghead:

Let’s give my head another whack at the wall.

No better place to start than the end.

And, while it defeats the purpose of a joke to engage in its analysis, why not, since it appears to have gone over some people’s heads. They ain’t laughing at the right point.

The festive humor is actually two-sided, a sort of mean-spirited cynicism, built on burst promise-balloons of Santa-hopes on one hand, and on the other a joyful recognition of Someone who moves everywhere, behind the scenes, in full view. My first reading of the article elicited a hearty laugh, followed by tears of joy. The more I meditate on the why’s of such odd behaviour, the more I am convinced that it constitutes an opportunity for God to smile and give a wink to those of us who are scientifically inclined.

While scientific research can cause the imagination to soar in its contemplation of the glory of God as it is revealed in His creation, for the most part, to the chagrin of those who abhor such descriptions, it is merely a form of black magic, twisting matter to serve the interests of pride, greed, control, and pleasure.

To find the transcendent peeking through, oh joy!

Pretty much everyone with whom I have discussed this study, asked the same question. “However did he dream this up?” Precisely! It points towards the source of creativity, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, understanding and wonder.

It suggests that ultimately, things are good. We have our crosses, but they are the means by which, in their overcoming, we are able to choose love. There is so much joy and happiness to be had, even in this world.

The commentary on this thread hasn’t been about a scientific study proving or disproving the power of prayer, the reality of miracles, or the existence of God. Any such “proof” is found in our hearts, within our actual relationship with God. What the discussion demonstrates, among other things, is how it is all about the interpretation. One chooses whether or not to open one’s heart and mind, to cast oneself into the depths of existence, to seek God who speaks to us through everything. But, skepticism is so alluring, offering a safe comfortable, if not dry and empty, view. And, there is a modicum of sadistic pleasure to be found in ridiculing others, athough this is more a projection of shame and embarrassment over one’s own ignorance.

Every moment is significant and there is nothing in which we cannot see the hand of God. One doesn’t have to be a medical researcher. Perhaps that qualification may make it more difficult to see what is there, procedures and theories distorting reality into the expected.

Miracles are everywhere as part of one grand miracle that is creation, revealing the glory of God. He reaches into time, all of which exists within the ocean of His boundless compassion. His will is to bring us into eternal communion. Miracles are His response to our needs, whether or not they are subsequent to our prayers, reminders of His love and healing grace when our faith is waning and we find ourselves without direction.

Long winded for sure, but that didn’t hurt at all. It was fun actually.

I enjoyed reading a refreshingly positive account of reality rather than a tale of doom and gloom. There is an incalculable amount of misery, injustice and suffering in the world to which there is no solution before we die. Yet the cynics, sceptics and pessimists have failed to demonstrate it would be better if life had never existed on this planet. If that is what they really believed they wouldn’t have any children and would advocate euthanasia for anyone who doesn’t seem to have any prospects of enjoying being alive. To reject the very possibility of miracles like Hume is not only illogical it often leads to injustice or insanity as in the case of poor Nietzsche…

 

[o_mlly]

So…where are these miracles? Why the total silence?

Don’t you have a search engine like google?

youtube.com/watch?v=4wQglesZdQo

 

[tonyrey]

Depends on which child is asking.

“Kids can have fun with Talking Tom in each McDonald’s® Happy Meal® through September 22. At participating McDonald’s. While supplies last.” - happymeal.com/

“Diarrhoea is one of the leading causes of death among children under five globally. More than one in ten child deaths – about 800,000 each year – is due to diarrhoea.” - who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/9789241598415/en/

Many cases are due to the diabolical injustice and inequality in the world for which the inhumanity of man is responsible.

 

[Aloysium]

which reminds me. “raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings.” perhaps some people spend their lives thinking beautiful thoughts, looking down from their ivory towers. “from a distance we all have enough, and no one is in need. And there are no guns, no bombs and no disease, no hungry mouths to feed.” perhaps there are others who won’t retreat from reality, or who don’t have that luxury. . . Which reminds me. Beautiful thoughts don’t make reality disappear. . .

Well that’s a most interesting response; sort of makes me feel funny.

View attachment 23427

Not sure where you are coming from.

Now I could take it personally. But, I won’t.

Instead, I will bore with my :twocents::

We are relational beings, self-other, imperfect, by our own will, images of the Triune Godhead who is Love.
When we had it all at the beginning of time, we squandered it, desiring to appropriate what was not ours, to place ourselves rather than God at the centre of the garden which is the reality of our existence in the world.
Crosses, we all bear, everyone including those who live in the Ancient-Rome political systems to be found in ivory towers. Those crosses are the means by which we grow in the graces of the spirit and give ourselves to the eternal Source of all being.
It is in the trenches of life that we not only surrender our attachments to illusion and the transience of the world, but have the opportunity to help one another.

Beautiful thoughts are not delusional.
We tend to be too busy, perhaps too disillusioned with life to bother contemplating raindrops on roses. Do it while your vision remains better than any fancy, expensive 4K television!
It is true that pretty thoughts and images may be remnants of a lost innocence, harking back to a beauty supplanted by harsh truths of what it means to be human, harsh truths which are subsumed in the infinite beauty of the light that is the sacrifice of the Innocent Lamb. Life can be too hard too endure at times.
Cutesy thoughts can also be a mask, hiding the evil that dwells in the human heart.
Ultimately, “beautiful thoughts” do point to Reality, the Beauty that is Existence, from which all this springs, reflecting the glory of our Maker.

We are here to help one another, God’s hands in this world. If not me, then who?

 

[MPat]

I think that I have found out all that I need.

Looks like you are easy to please.

But really, it is rather sad that you didn’t want to learn anything here - not even “what other stupid things those other people might believe”…

Would that be the case. Except that we are constantly being told: 'Look. Here is the evidence. Look. Here is the proof.

People aren’t believing without seeing. They are demanding that I believe what they think they see.

There is a difference between “evidence” or even “proof” and “seeing”. For example, there is a proof that 0.999… = 1. But it is not something that is seen, in the way in which 1 = 1 is seen. And yes, even in this minor matter, blessed (a little) are the ones who trust a proof when the result is not seen. For they are right and the ones who insist on disbelieving something they do not see are not.

You’re the one making the claim. It’s highly unusual for anyone to claim that a single statistical result is significant.

Every day there’s a study which statistically “proves” beer (say) is good for the health, only to be followed tomorrow by one which statistically “proves” the opposite. We all know that we ought to see many independent studies before we can take statistical claims seriously.

But you made a claim from a single paper, short-cutting all the corroborating studies normally required. so either you’re a world-class expert on medical statistics. Or you’re not.

Can you actually cite me saying that this study actually establishes anything?

And, by the way, in here you are making claims about the study. Are you really saying we should just disregard everything you say until you prove your own qualifications in some way? Or, perhaps, we can accept at least something you said without getting you to abandon your privacy?

I think that’s a weaker claim than what some have been making, but if it involves God doing the bidding of a computer, as per the BMJ paper, then it’s still a joke.

Ah, but would it have to be “God doing the bidding of a computer”? I see one more possibility…

That’s not what I’ve been arguing. I’m being told that due to someone of unknown faith saying a few words over a computer listing, God retroactively had those the computer randomly picked get well sooner several years previously.

Now to me that procedure seems designed to make a joke of religion. If God paid so much attention to a computer then there would be no point whatsoever in your Church existing.

A very good point, but let’s look further. Was the paper meant to be a joke? Certainly. Was it “designed to make a joke of religion”? That is harder to prove (perhaps it would be more charitable to assume that the joke was aimed at studies that expect to have “God doing the bidding of a computer”), but it seems to be possible. (By the way, the jokesters in question did not have to be the authors themselves - the joke might have been an idea of someone else.)

And now - assuming that it was a joke of the kind that you have described - what result were the jokesters expecting? What were they counting on? I’d guess that the negative result had to be the expected one. So, what result would have disappointed them most? Perhaps the one that has been reported?

As you can see, what might look like “God doing the bidding of a computer”, might also be something very different…

Still, my point is just that it is a possible explanation (or that it is not an obviously impossible explanation). There are other alternatives. For all we know, there might have been some experimental error involved.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14155215:

Wesrock;14155095:

Are you saying reality isn’t beautiful?

Depends on which child is asking.

“Kids can have fun with Talking Tom in each McDonald’s® Happy Meal® through September 22. At participating McDonald’s. While supplies last.” - happymeal.com/

“Diarrhoea is one of the leading causes of death among children under five globally. More than one in ten child deaths – about 800,000 each year – is due to diarrhoea.” - who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/9789241598415/en/So it’s subjective, then.

No of course not. People still suffer whether or not you look away.

 

[inocente]

Well that’s a most interesting response; sort of makes me feel funny.

View attachment 23427

Not sure where you are coming from.

Now I could take it personally. But, I won’t.

Instead, I will bore with my :twocents::

We are relational beings, self-other, imperfect, by our own will, images of the Triune Godhead who is Love.
When we had it all at the beginning of time, we squandered it, desiring to appropriate what was not ours, to place ourselves rather than God at the centre of the garden which is the reality of our existence in the world.
Crosses, we all bear, everyone including those who live in the Ancient-Rome political systems to be found in ivory towers. Those crosses are the means by which we grow in the graces of the spirit and give ourselves to the eternal Source of all being.
It is in the trenches of life that we not only surrender our attachments to illusion and the transience of the world, but have the opportunity to help one another.

Beautiful thoughts are not delusional.
We tend to be too busy, perhaps too disillusioned with life to bother contemplating raindrops on roses. Do it while your vision remains better than any fancy, expensive 4K television!
It is true that pretty thoughts and images may be remnants of a lost innocence, harking back to a beauty supplanted by harsh truths of what it means to be human, harsh truths which are subsumed in the infinite beauty of the light that is the sacrifice of the Innocent Lamb. Life can be too hard too endure at times.
Cutesy thoughts can also be a mask, hiding the evil that dwells in the human heart.
Ultimately, “beautiful thoughts” do point to Reality, the Beauty that is Existence, from which all this springs, reflecting the glory of our Maker.

We are here to help one another, God’s hands in this world. If not me, then who?

Where I was coming from is, people still suffer whether or not you look away.

Beautiful thoughts are like alcohol. After getting drunk on beautiful thoughts, all the problems are still there.

-]Incantations/-] prayers over computer listings are like alcohol. After getting drunk on confirmation bias, all the problems are still there.

Christ didn’t call us to live in Disneyland. Christ said be child-like, not childish. That’s where I was coming from .

 

[inocente]

Can you actually cite me saying that this study actually establishes anything?

And, by the way, in here you are making claims about the study. Are you really saying we should just disregard everything you say until you prove your own qualifications in some way? Or, perhaps, we can accept at least something you said without getting you to abandon your privacy?

For the third time .

We all know that statistics are often used to try to blind us to weak arguments. Therefore when someone claims that statistics from one single study, all on its ownsome, proves remote retroactive prayer, that person is either trying to blind us, or has been blinded, or is so highly qualified he sees something the rest of us can’t.

Now if you are not making that claim, do you think what I just said is wrong? And if you are making that claim, do you think what I just said is wrong?

*Ah, but would it have to be “God doing the bidding of a computer”? I see one more possibility…

A very good point, but let’s look further. Was the paper meant to be a joke? Certainly. Was it “designed to make a joke of religion”? That is harder to prove (perhaps it would be more charitable to assume that the joke was aimed at studies that expect to have “God doing the bidding of a computer”), but it seems to be possible. (By the way, the jokesters in question did not have to be the authors themselves - the joke might have been an idea of someone else.)

And now - assuming that it was a joke of the kind that you have described - what result were the jokesters expecting? What were they counting on? I’d guess that the negative result had to be the expected one. So, what result would have disappointed* them most? Perhaps the one that has been reported?

As you can see, what might look like “God doing the bidding of a computer”, might also be something very different…

Still, my point is just that it is a possible explanation (or that it is not an obviously impossible explanation). There are other alternatives. For all we know, there might have been some experimental error involved.

On “God doing the bidding of a computer”, that’s even more the case than I first thought.

Leibovici used “a random number generator (Proc Uniform, SAS…)”. Turns out that’s deterministic and predictable. Same as the pseudo-random algorithm in every phone and PC, even has the same period of 2[sup]31[/sup] - 1. So a program written by a person decided which patient went into which group. (Maybe Leibovici used SAS because it’s certified whereas his laptop isn’t.)

Leibovici is on record as saying he wanted to show how something subjective like prayer is not amenable to certain kinds of scientific analysis. Speculatively, perhaps he wanted to obtain a positive result to demonstrate his point, and as he’s apparently a world class expert in medical statistics, he probably knew exactly where he was going in designing it.

In the paper, Leibovici says “Funding: None”, and it’s the kind of cheap experiment which could be repeated independently all over the world by grad students, yet 15 years have passed.

So no, I think some people here, who may or may not include your good self, came under the spell of confirmation bias before critical thinking kicked in. Out-of-body experience is so last century, time for remote retroactive prayer.

(And while there’s no support for it from the Church, the Leibovici is linked by the Institute of Noetic Sciences and other paranormal organizations. Whether it also made its way into any of the Harry Potter books I don’t know).

 

[inocente]

Don’t you have a search engine like google?

youtube.com/watch?v=4wQglesZdQo

It’s a good point - these days many people might mistake high-tech for miracle. Presumably she pressed the open button in the panic, then either the rain sensor closed the window (other makes with toys are available) or the short-circuit fail-safe was to close.

 

[fladreamer]

Don’t you have a search engine like Google?

youtube.com/watch?v=4wQglesZdQo

Not gonna read the whole thread again, but i’m pretty sure this video has been linked earlier.

Second of all, that poster, pumpkincookie, is Mensa-level smart, so I’m not sure talking to him like he’s an ignorant is a great idea, not to mention it’s not very respectful. Look Jesus did wondrous stuff, performed amazing miracles, and he said that his followers would do even greater things, and I think pumpkincookie wants to see those things. He wants to see an aids patient being healed instantly, a severely malnourished African child with a bloated abdomen and skin disorder be healthy in one split of a second, as Jesus clearly promised. He wants clear, straightforward, unequivocal, irrefutable, not 3rd rate stuff open to theories and interpretations.

 

[fladreamer]

I have not read this whole thread and I’m not going to, but maybe it’s simply because a miracle cannot be recorded on video. If someone had, say, an apparition of the Blessed Mother and whipped out his cell phone to record it, her image might simply not record.

Maybe it can’t be recorded because she’s simply not there. Like here youtube.com/watch?v=xXVERL0aOwA The ‘‘seer’s’’ explanation: I thought Mary was going to (supernaturally and spiritually) drop Baby Jesus! Can a spirit hurt itself if it does fall on the ground? Not being bound by the law of gravity, can it even fall? One has to wonder why it takes the Vatican ages to make a definitive statement on that hoax. Or Bélanger’s vid has never been seen by anyone of authority in the Vatican.

 

[PRmerger]

Not gonna read the whole thread again, but i’m pretty sure this video has been linked earlier.

Second of all, that poster, pumpkincookie, is Mensa-level smart, so I’m not sure talking to him like he’s an ignorant is a great idea,

Here it comes…the smilie that I rarely use…

Discussions about a poster’s “Mensa-level” intelligence notwithstanding, are you asserting that if someone had merely “average smarts”, it would be permissible to talk to him “like he’s an ignorant”?

 

[Wesrock]

Not gonna read the whole thread again, but i’m pretty sure this video has been linked earlier.

Second of all, that poster, pumpkincookie, is Mensa-level smart, so I’m not sure talking to him like he’s an ignorant is a great idea, not to mention it’s not very respectful. Look Jesus did wondrous stuff, performed amazing miracles, and he said that his followers would do even greater things, and I think pumpkincookie wants to see those things. He wants to see an aids patient being healed instantly, a severely malnourished African child with a bloated abdomen and skin disorder be healthy in one split of a second, as Jesus clearly promised. He wants clear, straightforward, unequivocal, irrefutable, not 3rd rate stuff open to theories and interpretations.

The greater things are by and large the sacraments, not new healings or anything.

 

[PRmerger]

He wants clear, straightforward, unequivocal, irrefutable, not 3rd rate stuff open to theories and interpretations.

Not gonna happen. Sorry.

That, of course, isn’t proof that God doesn’t exist, or that Christianity is false, is it?