Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Thumpalumpacus]

You should probably read up on quantum mechanics, Chad. It refutes all three claims.

But yes, do go on.

“What the (Bleep) Do You Know.” Since its discovery, quantum mechanics has been used to justify the claims of New Age hucksters, so-called non-dualists, proponents of idealism, and various mystical beliefs. Disagreements of interpretation abound. This doesn’t not make you wrong; it only means that you should take pause before making pronouncements about what QM research does and does not reveal. As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues. Doing so puts the cart before the horse.

I make no claim to expertise, but I know that it directly refutes two of your claims. That you'd wave it away as a matter of preference is not a problem with my point; rather, I've just elicited what I want from you, an admission that you'd rather ponder the ineffables as aopposed to talk about facts.

Me, I will take the findings of natural science any day of the week. Reality is my ontology.

Fortunately it doesn’t take an advanced degree in physics to recognize the incoherence of the self-refuting position you have taken. The findings of all natural science inquiries, including QM, presuppose the fundamental principles I listed. If the results of a QM experiment were to invalidate the first principles of its own inquiry then its own results are invalidated.

That's actually why QM gives everyone fits. But -- the computer you are reading this on relies upon QM to work. If QM weren't true, you and I wouldn't be having this exchange. So however much you wish to protest that QM cannot be (because you have logicked it out of existence!), you have certainly chosen the wrong medium to argue that point -- this medium relies the very thing you say cannot be.

That leaves open the question of what to make of quantum oddities and puzzles. Nothing prevents the existence of contraries in a particular provided they are not contrary in the same respect. For example suffering is contrary to joy and yet an athlete can suffer greatly during a marathon and still experience the joy of achievement. I am not suggesting that I know how to apply that idea to any one quantum puzzle. I only bring it up to suggest how such puzzles can be resolved without falling into self-refutation.

This is nonsense. Joy and suffering are subjective states. We were supposed to be speaking about objective reality. Stay on topic.

Also, I just wanted to point out how similar is this passage of yours:

As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues.

... to this graphic in the OP's article: