Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Yes, I was being ironic...and a tiny bit sarcastic...just as I said I was.

Glad you finally agree.





Nothing "empty" about what I have to say, Fresco...and I say it without all that nonsense you pretend is intelligence at work.

It seems agreeing with you isnt enough .

Depends.
What are your axioms? Your propositions? How will you evaluate evidence?

There is evidence, of course. But is it sufficient? Is it necessary?

You are wasting your time Neo. He doesn't understand that his avoidance of axioms makes remarks about "logic" or "right and wrong" or "knowing" completely vacuous. He is an epistemological ignoramus.

How would you express that in non-representative language?

Cacapoum cacapoum prout prout?

Merde in France ?

Youpe youpe youpe nar...

If you want to agree with me...agree with me.

My response to your last post was appropriate.

Since you seem to be on the "there is at least one god", Neo...why not just take a crack at showing that logic can get you to "there is at least one god."

We can take it from there.

"Ignoramus", huh?

Another "vacuous!"

Kinda makes one wonder why someone as brilliant as you suppose yourself to be even bothers.

I suspect because on some level, you know I am not an ignoramus...and what I am saying here is not vacuous.

...neither do you when you throw out Ontology...its a laugh for sure !

What evidence is there for a talking thinking personal God, eh ? Someone said so ?

I am a God to but just on Fridays...its a mystery you must unravel Wednesday night close to midnight. Bring your augmenting glass, pencil and a footnote book Sherlock...

I throw out "ontology" based on axioms of "independent beings". I do not throw out ontology based on axioms about the dynamic process of "being".
(References: Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Lakoff, Varela)

And just how do you know time is fundamental ? Because "dynamic" means just that...how do you know ??? One can invent axioms it doesn't mean they are true. Tell me honestly Fresco what do those guys know about theoretic physics to assert just that ? Believe me I am all for changing my mind when I see an argument that can stand.

No Frank, I know that you know your limitations and that you are out of your depth. You have admitted as much, irrespective of the facile game you play which amounts to "if there is any depth, nobody knows about it".
Only an ignoramus, or self-valedictory ex-novice, would deny that most of the time we all operate in terms of "belief" (or assumed axioms). The trivial belief that the sun will rise tomorrow should be sufficient to anybody with half a brain to reconsider the stupid platitude "I don't do beliefs".

You should use Occam Razor to get rid of the continuum hypothesis...
...funny enough I have an argument to "sort off" help out your position on open ended reality but it can't stand a strong test...

...one could argue everything exists in a continuum, time, space, things....everything can be divided ad infinitum and thus is-ness cannot be tamed because anything would be infinitely many things if infinitely divisible with no small part in sight ever to be found...

...ya know how could such a vision stand the problem of causal infinite regression ? I know...

...you see funny enough you get rid of time as fundamental and instead say everything co exists in an ensemble..."we" whatever that means, just live in a finite pocket of that infinite ensemble and we count from our pov of reference...

...you want to know why I drop that ?
Because if I just have to stick the word infinity behind anything I say and it doesn't ad or subtract anything substantial to the world I am better Occam Razoring it out of existence...

PS- I was trying to figure whether you can grasp my argument before I posted it...I decided to give you the benefit of doubt.

You keep requesting a fundamental substrate, be it "time" or "information" etc in order to satisfy your take on "a satisfactory explanation". What you don't take into account is that there are different domains of explanation, none of which can be all encompassing unless perhaps you invoke "a deity". For example, Heidegger's dynamic of view of "being" does not require any physical concept of "time" as a parameter in a mathematical model. On the contrary it utilizes the word "time" in its psychological sense of focusing on aspects of the human world "in order to" control and predict. In this sense "objects" are affordancies with respect to possible relationships with their observers.(Merleau-Ponty).
Obviously without any open-minded reading of such references on your part we will continue to talk past each other. Note that you need to think twice about the meaning of "existence" which Heidegger says can only apply to humans as agents within a "being process".

...you didn't get it..I tried.

I do get it as a "realism" conclusion. But my comment on "existence" shifts the goal-posts.

...for the ones who got further in the argument. I was thinking of finitely counting infinities to establish mechanical connection from any A to any B...

...the argument falls because you subdue infinity with finity all the same...its just a trick. Better of Occam razoring it out.