There is no evidence for any God. As Ayn Rand put it so succinctly “You can’t prove a negative.”

I suggest that Mr. Garrison study the history of mythology from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Christianity wasn’t something new that suddenly popped up, it was based on older even more primitive religions which are now rightly called “myths”. This business of the wafer and wine as a symbolic act refers back to cannibalism as part of ancient rites.

I’m very open minded, but not to theories which have no supporting evidence. If I were so inclined I would believe anything I was told. Why then your God, why not one of the legions of former Gods who are now relegated to the dust bin? The Romans called Christians atheists, incidentally.

As for quantum physics I find it fascinating however the use of it in this piece is regrettable. Find something that can’t be explained, make it a “mystery” then use this as a basis for some divinity. Religion has been doing this for centuries, it feeds on ignorance (hence the warning against relying on knowledge).

JASON, on the other hand, appears more in the realm of the rational. You ask good questions Jason. But all I can tell you at this point is hang-in-there; you may find appropriate answers in what is yet to come.

Of course, if you’re really not seriously interested in what you read here or you think you will not find the answers here that you want, and judging by your words, you probably won’t, then obviously there’s nothing here for you. So go somewhere else! Nobody’s got chains on you.

As for JORG, he sounds too much like Michael Ramer with the exception that he does not make the phony claim Michael does of being a physicist. However, JORG is at least apparently as much in the dark as Michael as to the current state of modern quantum physics. So in this sense, what I showed Michael about what real physicists, and not phonys like himself, are saying about the non-rationality enigma that modern quantum physics presents to contemporary physics, that would apply to JORG as well.

In any case, however, I do not make it a practice and I do not by any means intend to go on carrying dialogues in any regular fashion with any of you closed mind types who think you already have all the answers. So go on with your uninformed ravings; I will only respond when I think it is important enough.

Michael Ramer said: It is simply not true that quantum physics undercuts rationalism and forces us to think nonrationally. During the period 1880-1930 scientists arrived at quantum physics through experimental observation of the real world and rational analysis of the results. While it is true that quantum physics is far from intuitive and hard to comprehend (thus the famous quotes by Einstein and others who struggled to understand its deeper meaning), one should recall that even Newton’s physics were a big step away from that of the ancient Greeks and was not obvious either. In fact, most people even now days who are not trained in physics hold the pre-Newtonian ideas intuitively (objects naturally come to rest if something is not acting on the, etc.)

Now it may be true that some sloppy thinkers have used the supposed superior rationality of the old Enlightenment era to argue the nonexistence of a God or whatever, let’s not set up that straw man and knock it down using an equally sloppy conception of what modern physics is. Modern physics is anything but nonrational. (I write as a physicist.)

AUTHOR’S RESPONSE:

It is difficult to even begin to respond to such incoherent, non-rational ramblings of an obviously confused pretender at physics. Any butcher, baker or candlestick-maker can easily write the words, (“I write as a physicist”) and be deluded enough to think that just by writing this, everyone will believe him. Yeah, if you’re a physicist, I am a brain surgeon and I moonlight as a rocket scientist at night. Gimme a break you lying phony.

You have given no list of your specific credentials and how a reader can verify that you are not a lying phony, like I believe you are. On the other hand, I cite from reputable known physicists whose credentials are verifiable through University faculty rosters. I cite, for example, from two physicists and Physics professors, well-known in their field, Bruce Rosemblum and Fred Kuttner at the University of California at Santa Cruz. These are people with extremely thick resumes in their occupation as physics researchers and academicians.

You, as a self-proclaimed physicist phony liar say, “Modern physics is anything but non-rational.” But real, verifiable physicists, Rosenblum and Kuttner at U of C Santa Cruz, portray modern physics a being an exact opposite from what you spout off as the phony liar that you are. Look, for example, at the following from their book “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” published by Oxford University Press ((2006). Get the book and go to the page numbers indicated below and see for yourself you phony pretend physicist:

QE-61 – “Though the paradoxical nature of light disturbed Einstein, he clung to his photon hypothesis. He declared that a mystery [i.e., a non-rationality] existed in Nature and that we must confront it. He did not pretend to resolve the [non-rational mystery] problem. AND WE DO NOT PRETEND TO RESOLVE IT HERE IN THIS BOOK. The mystery [non-rationality] is still with us a hundred years later. The implications of our being able to choose to prove either of two contradictory things extend beyond physics. It’s the quantum enigma [in case you as a phony don’t know what an enigma is, and you probably don’t, it is a non-rationality].

So you see you phony physicist liar, the mystery non-rationality is still in modern physics, a hundred years after Einstein: So much for your phony claim that “modern physics is anything but non-rational.” How can you be so stupid as to believe we are all going to take you at your word when real physicists, in whom you would not be worthy to be a pimple in their butt, say just the opposite that you do?

But there is much more, as you now see in the additional verifiable cites from QE posted below:

QE-112: “Many physicists pressed to respond to the strange [i.e., non-rational, counter-intuitive] nature of the microworld [which is revealed in quantum] might say something like: ‘That’s just the way Nature is. Reality is just not what we’d intuitively think it to be. Quantum mechanics forces us to abandon naïve realism [which is the realism that naïve and simpleton rationalist atheists hold].’”

QE-155: “Quantum mechanics forces us to accept that the mechanistic [and rationalistic] Newtonian view of the world—and the interpretations fostered by it—are fundamentally flawed.”

QE-13: “Anyone who takes the implications of quantum theory seriously would presumably agree that you can’t accept it with equanimity. Niels Bohr, [quantum] theory’s principal interpreter, tells us: ‘Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not [yet] understood it.’” [In case you’re so dim-witted as to fail to realize this applies to you, with your pretentious claim that modern physics is anything but non-rational, it means that you are saying to experts that you’re not shocked by modern physics (Quantum) and they are telling you in effect that you’re nuts for saying that…only a phony physicist liar who don’t know an electron from a proton could do that with such put on equanimity and probably a straight face.

I am now going to leave you to continue your phony rant and rave because your lying butt is not worthy of my precious time to go on with in a continuous and endless non-rational discussion. I got real serious matters to attend to and no time for sickening dialogues.

Basically, what you have here is another example of a theist who believes that science & reason are utterly unreliable, and suggests taking advice from several-thousand-years-dead shepherds or listening to voices in your head as more RATIONAL (emphasis added to mock unnecessary capitalization throughout article) guides to live your life by. But if science and reason are unreliable, how much less so must gut feelings & the superstitious words of primitive preachers be! If the concepts of gravity or magnetism don’t offer any absolute answers, how in the world are we supposed to trust theology or other such quackery? At least we can test and carefully examine science & reason; nothing exists that can testify to or refute the claims of the god-botherer.

This article is a prime example of how it doesn’t matter how many times you use the word “quantum” in a paragraph – nonsense is still nonsense.

Mr. Garrison, a supposed Christian, accepts the nihilistic solipsism of Nietzsche that all truth is relative?

And struggling Christianity’s best tactic is now to embrace the nihilism of Nietzsche? Oh gosh, it’s worse than we thought!

But this idea IS Interesting… “Christians for Nietzsche!”, he might cry. The two make for interesting bedfellows!

But wait! How does denying reason help Mr.Garrison prove anything?

It only proves that he is being IRRATIONAL in defending an EMOTIONAL-driven assumption of a god called Yaweh!

Which is what many of us have been saying all along…