Believable isn't the same as logical, sensible, or even sane.
For me to accept an equation to be believable, it has to have a logical, sensible, and sane workings.
Because my method is built on an objective scientific model of the world's religions; plus first hand experience, it does make it accessible data, if people asked rather than assume as they often do.
Thus the same with the equation of people with weak belief systems:
Generally in years of talking with religious people, one of the leading problems is many make boolean assumptions; rather than using a more logical open variable based system, as we would with scientific experimentation for verification.
Right now I can't think of a single religious concept one can put out there that isn't believable by someone. The mere fact it's a religious concept and started out somehow makes it believable by someone?
The problem with this equation is some people are naive, they sit citing one religious texts, and not reading any others, so they stay in the same ignorances...
When a multitude of ideas is correlated, without any direct connection to how they got the same data, it gives data that there is an external Source working to correlate it all.
Because some people will never study to that level of comprehension, in terms of understanding the Oneness of God, from the many textual narratives as One...
They miss the many opportunities to see things that are blatantly in front of us; provable clearer than day, by vast organizations fulfilling prophecies globally, exactly as written.
Think a big part of the problem I've witnessed in the Maya, is people don't choose to read to know the Source internally; they read to believe in fairytales the 'Self' debates externally about.
Everyone in the Maya is in a state of unconscious belief somewhere; the contexts of the Maya though can be shown by real contexts, and real moral issues, to wake us up to what is real.
In my opinion.