How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Relativity as part of the on going event is the nonmoving thing that the observer experiences . Its as if the nonmoving thing relativity is all at one with consciousness of the observer. This can be starkly seen when one considers the observer and c the speed of light which the observer is always stationary to. Consciousness is then stationary to its frame of ref the brain.

Sorry, but the title sounds like you're looking for a scripted answer. It seems you're looking for an answer to fit some sort of pre-determined understanding. ie. you're not looking for truth, but for support of a personal argument.

And to answer your question, I think there's truth to all religions.

Man was designed by relative action in the image of the designer. Relativity. Consciouness is relative as seen in the collapsing of the wave function in quatum wave mechanics.

Before action existed relativity existed as nonlocality and when action ceases to exist relativity will still exist as nonlocality. Relativity is the alpha and omega of action as nonlocality. Consciousness is therefor the alpha and omega that jesus spoke of or nonlocality as consciousness. .

You seem to delight in the inscrutable one-liner.
How do you define 'existence' ?

Relativity has no measurably size it just exists as nonlocality everywhere and your consciousness is pure relativity or nothing its your true identity if you can get beond your local identity its love with out attchment or just you. Existance is essentially you as eternity. The relativity in words is you.

Sounds like a version of Spinoza's pantheism (accepted by Einstein) except that for Spinoza, 'self' and 'identity' does not seem to figure very strongly. The Spinozan view of of God' as some sort of 'holistic consciousness willing existence' would of course throw out 'religion' or personifications involving a 'caring God' as meaningless.

Obviously anybody can play word games with the technical terms associated with Relativity or QM. But such games tend to be antithetical to the meditational concept of holistiic consciousness as 'ineffable'.

I dont agree . But einsteins view of jesus teachings was a good one he did not understand that relativity was the nonmoving thing. He kept his local identity view. Couldnt see throught it.

That 'I' would not. It has invested too much energy in its word games. Test it out with the rest of your committee. If necessary, sack the chairman!

Yep that could be the local me as ego saying I dont agree but I dont. But I think you follow . Relativity is what jesus was talking about in his parables the good samariton is an example of overcomming localness with universal relativity.

You are beginning to make Scientology look almost respectable !

You don't need Jesus or QM to talk about holistic consciousness and dissipation of 'self'. The Buddhists and the Sufis had the T shirt centuries ago

Sorry..that should have been addressed to you.

Yep you said for me fresco.

Ok how is it doubt is always indistinguishable from doubt. Doubt is relativity that dosnt understand its self.

No. Doubt usually involves an internal conversation between two disagreeing aspects of that committee we call 'self'. And in any case postmodernists such as Derrida have pointed out that every focus of our attention whether it be on 'self' or 'thing' is 'relative' to what is temporarily excluded. This is reflected in Spinoza's point that his 'God' cannot be conceived as an entity which has a property, only that which is NOT finite, temporary, divided, etc, indeed not 'an entity' at all.

But you are playing games with the term 'relativity' as though there were some scientific basis for your idiosyncratic system. Deconstruction of 'factual statements' such that they are shown to depend on transient contexts is the only process required to dump your hijacking of the term 'relativity'. Similarly, 'holistic considerations' is the only concept required to replace your hijacking of 'non-locality'.

I'm afraid I must resort to my usual recommendation on A2K that a bit more reading is required for you to understand the issues. Of course, blinkered 'believers' often have too much at risk to follow that recommendation.

Fresco are you a believer in a creator or god. It seems you are.

No. But I am a relativist regarding 'existence' . Thus 'God exists' for believers because it is a useful concept for them. As an atheist, a 'God concept' is useless to me. I don't need a concept of an agentive 'creator'. All I need is the concept of a process of continuous evolution. And as a cognate species, 'concepts ' are all we've got, whether of 'rocks', ''gods' or 'electrons' etc, the utility of which is always evaluated in terms human social transactions, and historically shown to be subject to re-evaluation.

A perfect marriage!

Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, Wooden shoe!"

Your reasoning is logical enough but god exists as nonlocality and nonlocality is relativity . Consciousness is relativity which explains the collapse of the wave function in qm. Certainty only exists as nonlocality. When your brain dies you will be held to account in your consciousness as eternity by relativity.

Sorry. If you have no option but to re-iterate your pseudo-scientific verbiage that's your problem. I'll simply leave you to it, with the comment on your 'logic' reference, that if you want to play with qm you can forget about 'logic'. A lack of appreciation of just that point tends speak volumes about the coherence of your system. In short, 'God exists FOR YOU' in terms of your particular choice ,of words. But don't expect anybody else to be able to commune with that choice, especially if they have any understanding of modern physics.
BTW This graffito used to be written on a toilet wall at my university...."God is the square root of minus one "..... I suggest that your 'system' has about equal status.