There is nothing logically inconsistent with an electron displaying wave and particle properties.

Paradox: a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. — khaled

Please visit the wikipedia page on Paradoxes and scroll down to Double-slit experiment

These are examples of things that seem not to make sense. What's being asked here is entirely different from creating an electron that behaves two different ways. It is asking for something that doesn't make sense. Something that can't exist by definition. — khaled

A contradiction is the linchpin of the refutation of the obvious solution to the omnipotence or stone paradox. The solution is that god can lift the stone god can't lift. The refutation is that that's a contradiction: god can't life the stone AND god can lift the stone. Contradictions are a part of our reality as the list of paradoxes I've linked you to demonstrate. In other words, assuming God created this universe, contradictions are as easy as ABC for God.

don't get me wrong. I think religion is very interesting. Historically is course, it is an interesting source for moral and ethical thinking and a clear cultural influence. I'd guess at least 50% of our moral intuitions today are Christian (in the EU and former colonies) - otherwise we'd still be dueling it (Germans, Franks and Saxons used to) out in the streets and having family feuds. And a lot of those Christian ideas have been exported through various treaties and how we conclude agreements. Of course Christianity itself borrows from Greek philosophy and older religions and much of it's legal work is a continuation of Roman law.

The problem with the philosophical discussions is that belief in God is a question of faith. There's no discussion to be had as they are ontological assumptions about how the world works. If you believe God exists then you will look at the world through that assumption. There's nothing here to disprove that assumption because it's a way of looking arrived at through faith not through a scientific enquiry.

Is this like a Donald Trump megathread :smile:

Do you talk about whether religious arguments become obsolete over time? If so, no doubt.

This happened with the pantheistic religion of the ancient roman civilization. Over the centuries, and with the absence of any proof that the Gods - or in the case of monotheism, God - exists, civilization begins to doubt the figure of worship, and eventually, the arguments that support its religion. It is not by chance that the roman pantheon raised and brought down several Gods of the title of the highest deity - Jupiter, Heliogabalus, Sol Invictus, etc ... -. One of the weaknesses of any religion - it seems to me - is that it is partly founded on the belief that metaphysical events can - and should - manifest in the real world, which does not happen. — Gus Lamarch

As far as I'm aware, Heliogabalus was another name for Elagabalus, one of the more curious Roman emperors. Though the cult of the emperors was widespread, and some of the madder emperors may have considered themselves the highest deity, I don't think Heliogabalus or any emperor was considered such by "ancient roman civilization."

You seem to insist that Christianity is the basis for all that is best in Western Civilization, while acknowledging its problems in (I think) a rather dismissive fashion. You also seem hesitant to acknowledge the great debt Christianity owes to ancient pagan thought and civilization (being largely based on it and having incorporated it) and their influence on the West. I may be wrong, though.

As far as I'm aware, Heliogabalus was another name for Elagabalus, one of the more curious Roman emperors. — Ciceronianus the White

Aelagabalus, Heliogabalus, or even Elagabal, was an arab-roman sun God. He was initially venerated in Emesa - modern-day Homs, Syria -. The name is the Latinised form of the Arabic "Ilah Al-Gabal", and the cult of the deity spread to other parts of the Roman Empire in the second century, where he would be revered as "Elagabalos" by the Greeks and "Elagabalus" by the Romans.

The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus - also known as Heliogabalus -, who, before his accession, was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and was commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.

In a way, this cult driven idolatry of Heliogabalus, paved the way for Sol Invictus - late roman period version of Jupiter - to become the single most worshipped god of the pantheon, and when emperor Aurelian - emperor from 270 AD to 275 AD - ruled, the idolatry was so strong on Sol Invictus, that Aurelian considered banning all the other gods and establishing Sol Invictus as the sole God of Rome. He is famous for saying: "One God, One People, One Empire". Indirectly, this kind of accommodated the roman population to the concept of a single all-powerful God, who would eventually come to be formally established with Christianity.

You seem to insist that Christianity is the basis for all that is best in Western Civilization, while acknowledging its problems in (I think) a rather dismissive fashion. — Ciceronianus the White

In fact, I focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, as it has now become the rule to tarnish the image of the religion by focusing only on its rare cases of darkness. This is a perfect example of the decadence and secularization that I speak so much. Why don't they ask the same questions and make the same statements about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Shintoism, etc ...? It is very easy to criticize your parents when they are old and have built the entire foundation on which you currently live. Our society lives kind the same relationship with Christianity - as the romans lived with theirs during the "Dominatus" period of the Empire -.

You also seem hesitant to acknowledge the great debt Christianity owes to ancient pagan thought and civilization (being largely based on it and having incorporated it) and their influence on the West. — Ciceronianus the White

At no time did I even mention anything against greek philosophical influence on Christianity; in fact, I actually criticize Christianity for stealing greek ideas - Plotinus, as an example, practically developed the concept of the christian trinity with his " The One", " The Intellect" and " The Spirit" -.

I seem to be an extreme defender of Christianity, but in reality we live in a time where it has become the rule to defame your own past, and I wont allow it.

I seem to be an extreme defender of Christianity, but in reality we live in a time where it has become the rule to defame your own past, and I wont allow it. — Gus Lamarch

Thanks for the clarification.

As I recall, Constantine himself was a fan of Sol Invictus--for a time and as convenient. A canny fellow, Constantine, but not one of my favorites among the emperors.

Not to spend too much time on religion, but the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity in the Empire is something I find fascinating. I wish we knew more about the so-called mystery religions, especially the cult of Mithras regarding which we know very little.

A canny fellow, Constantine, but not one of my favorites among the emperors. — Ciceronianus the White

Constantine was successful because he was astute, charismatic, and populist. He told what the people wanted to hear, and told the senate and the elite what they didn't want to hear. I for sure don't like him in personality. And yes, the use of Sol Invictus and then Christianity was a good move.

Not to spend too much time on religion, but the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity in the Empire is something I find fascinating. — Ciceronianus the White

Then we are two.

especially the cult of Mithras regarding which we know very little. — Ciceronianus the White

What do you think about it?

One of the weaknesses of any religion - it seems to me - is that it is partly founded on the belief that metaphysical events can - and should - manifest in the real world, which does not happen. — Gus Lamarch

Rather, religions are weakened by a loss of meaning, which can result from metaphysical events failing to manifest.

Rather, religions are weakened by a loss of meaning, which can result from metaphysical events failing to manifest. — praxis

Religion loses its meaning because it has been weakened by the loss of its metaphysical legitimacy, not the other way around.

Metaphysical legitimacy, as you call it, in religion is necessarily derived from a chain of hierarchical authority. This chain is comprised of people, and also doctrine written by people. People are ‘only human’, as the popular saying goes. This realization and the corrosion of this great chain can also lead to a loss of meaning. Meaning can be lost in many ways but the general thrust is simply that we eventually outgrow childish things.

Meaning can be lost in many ways but the general thrust is simply that we eventually outgrow childish things. — praxis

Are you arguing that religion is a childish thing? If so, why?

Why do we eventually tell children that there's no Santa Claus? Because it's time for them to grow up.

Why do we eventually tell children that there's no Santa Claus? Because it's time for them to grow up. — praxis

What if they let themselves be blinded by another idea for the simple fact that they cannot stand their existence without purpose? This is the problem in our current society. We are denying your "Santa Claus" but we are not putting anything new in its place. Its common sense to criticize religion, but I dare any of you to construct something so complex and meaningful as to be the new "ideal" as religion was - and lets be honest, still is and will be -.

What if they let themselves be blinded by another idea for the simple fact that they cannot stand their existence without purpose? — Gus Lamarch

Then obviously they haven’t sufficiently matured.

This is the problem in our current society. — Gus Lamarch

Look at the current democratically elected leader of the free world and tell me that we live in a mature society.

We are denying your "Santa Claus" but we are not putting anything new in its place. — Gus Lamarch

Adults don’t need to be spoon fed a “complex” system of meaning. We’re free to discover meaning and purpose for ourselves. Part of that discovery may include the fulfillment of being part of something greater than ourselves, and significantly in the context of religion, something greater than our tribe. One of the inescapable failings of religion is that it cannot extend beyond the tribe or in-group.

Look at the current democratically elected leader of the free world and tell me that we live in a mature society. — praxis

I guarantee you one thing:

We have been living in the "Dominatus" for longer than everyone thinks ... He is not the worst, there are still worst rulers to come - at least for the mean time, I'm in a privileged position - here in Brazil - to watch the fall of the West - commonly known as Europe and North America -.

Then obviously they haven’t sufficiently matured. — praxis

I'm not getting your use of "maturity" to criticize the institutions of order of humanity. In what respect has humanity really matured? In relation to whom? We are what we are, the only thing going foward is time...

One of the inescapable failings of religion is that it cannot extend beyond the tribe or in-group. — praxis

The mere fact that Christianity and Islam are multi-cultural religions refutes his argument. It is no accident that they have persisted until today. Both are religions that do not differ between their converts. That's why we have christian japanese, and muslim american people. Religion unifies people more than it divides...

We have been living in the "Dominatus" for longer than everyone thinks ... He is not the worst, there are still worst rulers to come - at least for the mean time, I'm in a privileged position - here in Brazil - to watch the fall of the West - commonly known as Europe and North America -. — Gus Lamarch

Lol, true dat, and good luck with your privileged position.

I'm not getting your use of "maturity" to criticize the institutions of order of humanity. In what respect has humanity really matured? In relation to whom? We are what we are, the only thing going foward is time... — Gus Lamarch

Suffice to say as Fredy say: God is dead.

One of the inescapable failings of religion is that it cannot extend beyond the tribe or in-group.
— praxis

The mere fact that Christianity and Islam are multi-cultural religions refutes his argument. — Gus Lamarch

The Enlightenment endows us with the wondrous power to distinguish religion and culture.

Both are religions that do not differ between their converts. That's why we have christian japanese, and muslim american people. — Gus Lamarch

Right, they don’t differ between converts, they differ between in-groups or tribes. Those who subscribe to the same values, moral framework, and exalted purpose.

Religion unifies people more than it divides... — Gus Lamarch

So we agree that it divides, cool. :cool:

God is dead. — praxis

Leaving aside our previous religious discussion, your statement intrigued me. What do you understand when Nietzsche says:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? "

What do you understand when Nietzsche says: — Gus Lamarch

My understanding of why you quote him this way is in effort to substantiate your belief that people require some contrived fiction in order to be lead around like cattle.

My understanding of why you quote him this way is in effort to substantiate your belief that people require some contrived fiction in order to be lead around like cattle. — praxis

No. You who noticed that you interpret Nietzsche wrong as the whole crowd of people that claims to have read him. You don't cut a quote in pieces from someone so that they agree with your baseless opinion. If you want to quote someone, start being less biased, and be kind enough to project what the author really wanted to say.

And you didn't answer my question, so yeah...

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that you are in agreement with Nietzsche, and we are not in agreement. My reference to Nietz was only to signify The Enlightenment, because you asked how humanity has matured.

My reference to Nietz was only to signify The Enlightenment, because you asked how humanity has matured. — praxis

And did the Enlightenment make religion become something less than reason? Indeed it did. But I don't get why you quoted Nietzsche in this case, but ok.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that you are in agreement with Nietzsche, and we are not in agreement. — praxis

And Nietzsche disagrees with you too.

And Nietzsche disagrees with you too. — Gus Lamarch

Right, I don’t know how you interpreted otherwise. My fault for being unclear, I suppose.

"I came to have an insurmountable aversion to anything but the pursuits of Philosophy and General learning." Hume

I am much the same way. He also said religion is dangerous. My argument against Pascal's wager is not simply that we could be in a different epoch than early Christians (the past need not resemble the future says Hume), but also that God (assuming he exists) may not want us to make gambles of this sort. He may not want us to seek him or pray to him in any way.

What do you think about it? — Gus Lamarch

It's hard to say anything about it because its initiates apparently kept its secrets so well. Unless more is discovered, we're limited to the archaeological evidence and what Porphyry and a few of the Church Fathers say about.

The tauroctony and other imagery, largely astrological, are certainly interesting, as are the seven grades of initiation and the fact that the ritual involved a communal meal. I know it was once thought that Mithraism would have triumphed if Christianity didn't, but I don't think that's likely as its initiates were exclusively male. Still, the cult was apparently very popular, especially among the legions if the location of the Mithraeums are any indication.

Mithras, Helios and Luna are depicted in the imagery. Possibly Sol Invictus also. These depictions and astrological symbols indicate a variant of sun worship; maybe combined with Orphism ("I am a child of the earth and the starry heavens" was an Orphic inscription found on a funerary monument, I recall reading).

The triumph of Christianity was so extensive I don't know if we can ever know what or how initiates of Mithras, or Isis, or Cybele or participants in other mysteries like those of Eleusis believed and felt., except perhaps by inference from what we know of early Christianity's assimilation of them. I wish we could.

The triumph of Christianity was so extensive — Ciceronianus the White

This is a subject that fascinates me too much. Christianity completely deconstructed the classic mentality of the people of the time - from ethics, values, morals, virtues, stereotypes, prejudices, taboos, fetishes, dress, language, etc ... - It was like a complete deconstruction of the structuring of the human mind of the time - of course, over the years and not in a single moment -.

Mithras, Helios and Luna are depicted in the imagery. — Ciceronianus the White

They probably venerated a holy version of a zurvanist demon:

One of the most characteristic and poorly-understood features of the Mysteries is the naked lion-headed figure often found in Mithraic temples, named by the modern scholars with descriptive terms such as leontocephaline - lion-headed -. Based on dedicatory inscriptions for altars,[f] the name of the figure is conjectured to be Arimanius, a Latinized form of the name Ahriman - a demonic figure in the Zoroastrian pantheon -.

Arimanus:

Christianity may be the most elaborate attempt at establishing a religion ever executed (although the Mormons come to mind). It is no MORE a conspiracy theory to say this is what religions do than to say supernatural beings are behind the curtain. It's more likely human ingenuity is behind all religions than that supernatural entities beget them. That's at least how I see it

This is a subject that fascinates me too much. Christianity completely deconstructed the classic mentality of the people of the time - from ethics, values, morals, virtues, stereotypes, prejudices, taboos, fetishes, dress, language, etc ... - It was like a complete deconstruction of the structuring of the human mind of the time - of course, over the years and not in a single moment -. — Gus Lamarch

I agree there was a reconstruction if not deconstruction in several ways. I think it a great loss, myself.

Whether its a case of Christian "conditioning" or not, there is much about pagan worship that strikes us as bizarre and inexplicable. You mentioned the lion headed figure found in Mithraeums. How may someone raised in a Christian society think of it as anything but demonic? How can we understand animal sacrifice, or the significance of the bull not only in the Mithras cult but the worship of the Great Mother, and earlier in the worship of Dionysus and in Minoan and Egyptian religions? The significance of sacrifice and salvation are there in Christianity as well, of course, but on its face is so different. Nonetheless, it would seem the same needs and desires are being addressed.

Early Christianity had its own sects or heresies which would strike us now as bizarre as well. The Gnostics most especially I think. Gnosticism may have been influenced by Hermes Trismegistus and pagan cults emphasizing secret knowledge as necessary for salvation. And certainly Christian beliefs can be bizarre themselves; the Christian rituals as well. But not as bizarre--to us, in any case.

I agree there was a reconstruction if not deconstruction in several ways. I think it a great loss, myself. — Ciceronianus the White

Then we are two. Even trying to understand the symbologies that such practices and customs could have for them, we will never perceive these symbols with the same passion and mentality as them, because we - the descendants of the Christians who would dominate European civilization - were completely mentally reconstituted to see the practices classic as you put it: - As something evil, demonic, strange.

It was such a huge loss, that I doubt if ever again the individual human will have such freedom and "happiness".

You mentioned the lion headed figure found in Mithraeums. How may someone raised in a Christian society think of it as anything but demonic? How can we understand animal sacrifice, or the significance of the bull not only in the Mithras cult but the worship of the Great Mother, and earlier in the worship of Dionysus and in Minoan and Egyptian religions? The significance of sacrifice and salvation are there in Christianity as well, of course, but on its face is so different. Nonetheless, it would seem the same needs and desires are being addressed. — Ciceronianus the White

Read answer above.

Early Christianity had its own sects or heresies which would strike us now as bizarre as well. The Gnostics most especially I think. Gnosticism may have been influenced by Hermes Trismegistus and pagan cults emphasizing secret knowledge as necessary for salvation. — Ciceronianus the White

For example, for the short time in my life that I considered myself a Christian, I understood the concept of trinity in this way:

"Denial of the true divinity of Jesus Christ taking various specific forms, but all agreed that Jesus Christ was created by the Father, that he had a beginning in time, and that the title "Son of God" was a courtesy one."

Years later, studying the Christian faith, I ended up discovering that my past Christian belief was nothing more than the Arian interpretation of Arianism - a Christian heresy from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and which was widely adopted by the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - later, all of them would convert to Catholicism in the most diverse ways - -.

Gnosticism was - in my view - almost an identical religious cultural movement as the contemporary one - everyone has a personal god and interpretation of it, and everyone has to respect each other gods and interpretations -.

Years later, studying the Christian faith, I ended up discovering that my past Christian belief was nothing more than the Arian interpretation of Arianism - a Christian heresy from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and which was widely adopted by the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - later, all of them would convert to Catholicism in the most diverse ways - -. — Gus Lamarch

Emperors were Arian as well. For example Contantius, the predecessor and cousin of Julian the Apostate (those were interesting times). Have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? One of my favorite historical novels.

I've always thought the Arian view of Jesus is more acceptable, more reasonable (if that can be said of a religious belief), than the Nicene view, though I dutifully recited the Credo in Latin and English for many years.

Emperors were Arian as well. For example Contantius, the predecessor and cousin of Julian the Apostate (those were interesting times). — Ciceronianus the White

The Emperor Valens - sucessor of Julian in the East - was an Arian too. I don't know if you agree, but for me, this period of religious diversification that was in its full swing in the 3rd century is identical to our current period.

Have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? One of my favorite historical novels. — Ciceronianus the White

No, but now I'm interested.

I've always thought the Arian view of Jesus is more acceptable, more reasonable (if that can be said of a religious belief), than the Nicene view, — Ciceronianus the White

The Arian interpretation is much more logical and rational to the human mind and vision. "Jesus was simply a prophet of God who was adopted by him as his son". This sounds to the least studied - Germanic barbarians, and anyone without a theological and philosophical study today - as me when I was younger - - much more attractive and personal, than a "Person" of God coming to Earth to live and die between the humans.