What did the Romans do when they got their syncretism? Did they unify all inhabitants of the Roman empire? No. But nevertheless: their religion became a syncretistic religion, a syncretistic religion with a minority that did not want a syncretistic religion.
The question is whether we will get a syncretistic religion, and the answers can be “yes”, “no”, or “i don’t know” (see above).
The topic is a question: Will we get a syncretistic religion?
A syncretistic religion does not require an unification of all humans. But nevertheless: if we all get a syncretistic religion, then those who don’t want this syncretistic religion will also get a syncretistic religion (that’s logical, even tautological!), although they do not want it, although they are not religiously (but for example: economically or politically) unified.
Yes, and many of them are former syncretistic religions. But the question is: Will we get a syncretistic religion? This syncretistic religion would be more syncretistic than all other syncretistic religions before it.
Probably a syncretistic religion for all humans (the minority is included) is already in the making but not a complete reality yet, because those who are against it are still a majority.
The assumption is that because I do not agree with you that I do not understand you.
When these things happen, then the probably of them having happened will be 100%.
Sorry, I am not going to read other threads.
If I needed to read other threads then I do not see why you made this one.
… I would have responded to those.
I think in our case there is no disagreement which can’t be solved.
According to the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself it is not possible to know what would or will happen - otherwise the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself would be superfluous, redundant.
The second sentence annihilates the first sentence. So why is there the first sentence? The writers of this two sentences make themselves untrustworthy and attackable.
What does that exactly mean? “Non–denominational” does not mean the same in every country. So is it possible in the UK that even members of Non-Christian religions can join a Christian church by keeping / maintaining their Non-Christian religions?