How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

The meta relativity of consciousness as seen in collapse v the wave function in quantum mechanics is spirit. The spirit is the creator of physics in the nowand is indistigishable from event relativity.

Evolution only works when you have something to start with. For that, scientists have nothing but some very shaky theories (AKA - Tales told by an idiot).

If you like shaky theories, I'll be glad to give you one for the 'wastefulness' of the universe.

For my hypothesized 'God plan' to work, the test subjects (us) must have no irrefutable proof that they are test subjects. They must have no coercive influences whatsoever on them to get valid test results. As difficult as it would be to accomplish for sentient test subjects, even their own existence must have a plausible natural explanation for it. Hence - a very 'wasteful' and naturally appearing maze for the mice to search for the cheese within.

I suggest you think carefully about the word 'thing' as in the concept of 'something', because the word 'thing' itself is an anthropomorphism. It is a word ostensibly used to denote 'an object' with a separate existence to that of its 'observer'. But that position is technically called 'naive realism'. As Kant said, we never have direct access to 'things-in-themselves', and others have questioned the very status of 'in themselves'. So by extrapolation what we call 'something' or 'nothing' only has status in the minds of human observers in particular contexts. For example, we cannot say whether 'the nothing before the big bang' is equivalent to 'absence of something' or whether it will turn out perhaps to be accountable by some sort of mathematical balance between constantly evolving 'matter' and 'dark matter'. The odds are on the latter type of interpretation rather than the former, given the fact that we know so little about 'dark matter'. What we call 'things' depends humans which themselves are evolving in their focus. We are like vehicles looking for more and more tracks on which to indulge our intellectual travelling. And that travelling, or the roads it lays down has no hypothetical limit to its range.

Nothing as singularity is a thing as all things are a presentation of nothing.

Oh Christ on a cracker fresco. Go hang out on a navel gazing philosophy thread if you want debate whether the chair I'm sitting in really exists or is just an illusion of a brain in a vat.

I'm not saying that Kant et al's discussion about it wasn't worthwhile but at some point you have to let that go and get off that circular track if you want to get anywhere.

Kinds of nothingness ? Right...Krauss idiocy is contagious...
Balannce between the two things you pointed out is in no way a kind of nothingness.

By the way things are anything, X, so they have no anthropoformorfism whatsoever...
....more, the fact that things can interact, be it with other things, be it with "observers" makes them automatically non independent...that in turn doesn't mean you "construct" them out of your own free will..."you" a subjective concept also, interact according to your specs, this including the process of perception...obviously without milk and coffee you can't have a cappuccino. Experiencing the cappucinno doesn't dilute the nature of milk or coffee...on the contrary, it proves them. Reffering indirectly does not equal not referring.

The meta relativity between two things is nothing . And if nothing by logic is the creator of something then the meta relativity in that something that was created by nothing veiwed in its entirety is nothing . So nothing is the relativity in the something . The creator is relativity as nothing in the something it created.Hope that makes sense.Ha!

There are two kinds of properties...relational relative properties, effects of interaction, and the ones who are a NECESSARY condition in the things that interact, intrinsic properties.
While we don't have direct access to intrinsic properties, through Reason, we have to necessarilly postulate them to establish there is an interaction happening in the first place. Simple !

Knee jerk responses are alas the norm for those defending their vested interests.

Without humans there would be neither chairs, nor the word 'chairs' with which to 'picture them'. And without 'language using picturers' words like 'rocks', 'gods' or even 'humans', would be meaningless.

Isn't "unobserved" a subjective concept also ? If you don't know what "unobserved" it is why do you use it as a bedrock on your discourse ? Maaaan, so many years in the academy and you just can't catch up....sad situation.

We are stuck with words to try to transcend words. Hence the temptation to cash in on superficial paradoxes. 'Reality amounts to a functional description of 'the dynamic travelling'. Neither the vehicle nor the road taken has a priori existential status with respect to epistemological 'progress', nor indeed does any concept of 'an ultimate destination'.

If you think such paradoxes are superficial then you are losing a big deal of the picture Fresco. Seriously. Its not for cashing in, is food for serious continued thought. One should stop on the tracks when confronted with stuff like this.

I could go on with your example, but you can probably guess where that would go, Vested interests and all... What is the vesting period for interests anyway? For retirement benefits I think it was 5 years at my old workplace. Doesn't matter, it's only imaginary money anyway. Still, real people would get pissed if the bank people took that attitude. Might want to buy a chair or someTHING.

From the 'travel writer's' point of view( i.e.mine)the dichotomy subjectivity is dysfunctional. My working descriptions are of the two way dynamic process 'assimilation-accommodation' (Piaget) and allied to the dialectical 'thesis antithesis synthesis (Hegel). That is not to say I am in complete agreement with these writers, rather I am acknowledging their attempts to use neologisms to transcend dichotomous thinking.

We don't need to play games with the word 'interest'. Suffice to say you are not going to give up your 'God' which is personally functional for you, by actually thinking through the arguments for its general dysfunctionality. You are entitled to your belief, but certainly not entitled to any 'respect' you might claim for your assumption that your 'arguments' might be equally valid.

As a point of interest, a recent poll in the UK reported that 50% of the population had no religious belief. An interesting figure perhaps compared to those for the US, as I seem to remember(28% ?)

on the topic of the OP, I saw this recently

it's closest to what I was taught in school

Funny, I don't remember claiming, assuming or even asking for any.

We're all just talking here.

Good grief you get an out of jail free card by making a supposed synthesis out of your own bad thinking...excuse me but synthesis is not made out of transcending paradoxes, only opposing views. When you go and transcend Logic you just stopped reasoning, so you better shut up.

That number seems close to me but on another note it seems as though we may have a Jew who seems like a Jesus type of person that many religious and non-religious people are standing behind. faith is amazing at times.

It would be naive to assume the 'naive realist' to be naive.