Latest Blogs December 1, 2020 Schrodenger's Atheist November 28, 2020 The Curse of Sarcasm November 25, 2020 Writers' Two Friends November 23, 2020 Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi November 22, 2020 Keep It Private November 21, 2020 The Insomnia Song November 14, 2020 Career Announcement November 5, 2020 Early Voting Shock November 1, 2020 Before You Vote					SITE UNDER RECONSTRUCTION A little bit at a time. Check back often. LATEST NEWS November 25, 2020 All pages, plus all blogs from November 23 on, are now linkable on social media. November 23, 2020 I will be attending the Writer Igniter Science Fiction and Fantasy Summit November 30-December 4. email
	7/17/2020	8/18/2020	To be updated	9/1/2020
	6/6/2020	6/14/2020	See left column	Always updated

Recently, I came across a comment on post on FaceBook that was about the history of violence in Christianity, and how we shouldn't be surprised at how Christians are acting. This has three critical flaws: He wrongly assumed that the entirety of Christian history is violence. In order for this to be true, every Church would have to be violent all the time. Each church has had periods of peace. He equated the Roman Catholic Church and American Fundamentalism. These are two completely separate groups who constantly oppose each other. He assumed that we know the entire history of Christianity. The truth is, most Americans--most in the western world, in fact--have only heard of the Orthodox Church, if that, and that that the only violence it has seen has been defending during the Crusades--which the Church of Rome was solely responsible for. I grant that the fact that he is an atheist has much to do with his belief. You see, there are two types of atheists: Those who do simply do not believe, and those who vehemently deny. The latter usually emerges out of the churches that use psychological control tactics on their flocks. From the Evangelicals screaming over anyone who disagrees, to the Mormons who knock on your door a week after you miss a single service, to the Baptists who manipulate the Scriptures to their own ends, atheists see what is happening, but deny it is just that one church. They see it as the whole--exactly how each of those churches wants to be seen. The result is that the atheist uses every opportunity to take down not only that church, but all churches. Even the Church of Rome is guilty. One man I knew fifteen years ago was raised Roman Catholic. But when the Church declared the Bodily Assumption of Mary in 1950, he said, "Wait a minute . . . " That was when he left the Church for good. For the record, the other Catholic Churches (such as the Byzantine Catholic Church) and the Orthodoxy have maintained for two thousand years that Mary "fell asleep in the Lord", or died. I was preparing a rebuttal and an explanation of why the angry atheist thinks the way they do, but I believe the above is enough. But a few minutes before writing this, I had a thought that led me to a conclusion in a matter of seconds. That conclusion is controversial, at best. And here it is: The Schrodenger's Cat hypothesis has a fatal flaw. It may sound like a stretch, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Here's how it happened: It started while thinking about the logical inconsitencies in atheistic thinking. Basically, the main argument they come back to is: "Where's the proof? You have no proof. Therefore, there is no God." Anyone who understands logic will see the flaw in this line of thought: Lack of proof of one case is never proof of the opposite case. And the atheistic argument is that lack of proof of existence is proof of non-existence. Let's take a different example: Extraterrestrials. I'm going to make this as simple as possible so anyone can understand. Fact: We have not discovered every world in the universe, so we do not know whether or not many worlds developed life. Skeptic: We have no evidence there's life on other planets. Therefore, there is no life in the universe besides us. Believer: But you can't prove it because we haven't even found every planet in the universe. Therefore, there is life out there, somewhere. Same logical structure Diametrically different conclusions Both unproven, but each taking a lack of proof as proof When I considered the consequences of this false argument on both sides, I was reminded of Schrodenger's Cat. Basically, the concept is this: A cat is in a box. Someone is there, about to open the box. He knows there's a cat inside, but not whether or not it's alive. According to quantum physics, the state of the cat's survival is in a state of quantum flux until the box is opened, when one or the other is randomly determined. I was thinking about the conundrum in terms of the atheist and the Christian. I thought about religious history, and how there have always been opposing sides. Christians and Rome. The Arian heresy. The iconoclasts. The Great Schism, which is between Rome and Constantinople (not with Paris, as many historians will tell you) since July 16, 1054, and has yet to be healed. The Crusades. Protestantism. As I thought about it, I realized they all started with a single man on each side. Augustus. Arius. Patriarch Michael Celularius. Pope Leo IX. Torquemada. Martin Luther. John Calvin, the man from whom the Pentacostal, Evangelical, and Baptist Churches arose. (He has been verified as a lunatic since then, but they aren't even aware of it.) And as I thought about a single man starting something, I suddenly had a huge question that made me stop and write this before I make breakfast: How did the cat get in a closed box? It's possible that the cat crawled in, itself. Some cat owners might even say it's likely. But then, I thought of the question that floored me: Who closed the box? There is only one answer to the identity of the person, but a myriad of ways to say it. The one that's important is: The box was closed by somebody who already knew if the cat were dead or alive. The state of the cat is already known by whomever closed the lid on the cat, thereby removing the quantum flux and fixing the state of living. And if the cat climbed in, itself, then it would logically be alive, or at least the chances are heavily in favor of it. So much for the modern view of quantum physics. Now, I'm not saying quantum physics has no basis. A quantum is the smallest unit of energy there is. It's indivisible, and therefore has different intrisic properties. I just don't think theoretical physicists understand what they're looking at. From an outside view, it appears to me as a set of possibilities, not in reality, but in the mind of the observer. For instance, on a football field, only twelve men know which play has been called until the ball is snapped--the offensive coordinator and the eleven players on the field. The fans, announcers, referees, defense, and even teammates have no idea what the play is. But once the ball is snapped and the players are in motion, the play becomes obvious. That's the kind of thing I believe we're seeing with quantum physics. I believe quantum physics is the bridge between the physical world and the realm of thought. If these are just possibilities that the viewer must deal with, then controlling the possibilities in a quantum realm may be a way to control reality. On one hand, we could generate food and clothing out of thin air. On the other hand, we could use starvation as a weapon and dissolve the clothing of every woman on Earth. Of course, this is just my theory, and I'm introducing it, here. Then again, quantum entanglement has become a reality. Until next time . . .

Web page designed and maintained by W G Walters.

All information copyright(c)2005-2020 with all rights reserved unless otherwise noted.