Yes, regarding 1, I thought it a possibility but addressed your literal point.

My disagreement was on “the crucial difference” – which I think is that QM is really not contradictory, while the Gospels are.

I guess you’re technically right – QM was determined not contradictory ex post facto, because it was amenable to empirical determination, whilst Revelation can never be so.

The Gospels are rather ambiguous (witness the tens of thousands of Christian sects), but indeed the contradictions therein are logical, not just observational as with wave/particle duality, and therefore intractable.

Re 2, begging the question

2. I don’t know about you, but it was sure begging me.

3 & 4. Fair points – and the “apparent” qualifier is truly critical here.

Horvath tries to argue that contradictions in the Gospel are analogous to quantum physics, and phenomena such as the behavior of light (like a particle under certain circumstances, and like a wave under others). The crucial difference between these two cases, however, is that you can observe the way light behaves, so your conclusion is based on verifiable observation. God does not show up in real life, however, so you can’t call theological contradictions a case of observed behavior. The two cases are not analogous.

You say the crucial difference between Quantum Mechanics and contradictory theology (Gospels, Trinity, etc.) is that the former is observable. I think Ebonmuse said the same thing. But, to me, this always begs the question, how is QM contradictory? Where is the “X & (not X)” derived from the principles of QM? I don’t see it. In fact, if I’m interpreting the physics correctly, ‘wave’ is just a generalization of ‘particle,’ so there isn’t really a problem at all. Thus, the QM analogy is a false one.

1. In light of the mutual conclusions I’ve bolded, you only think you disagree with the Deacon.
2. It invites the question, it does not beg it.
3. Current understanding has changed; back when QM was being formulated, waves were considered to be a disturbance propagating through a medium, whilst particles were considered to be objects in themselves, so it was a great wonder and an apparent contradiction that something could seem to be both, depending on how it was observed.
4. The Deacon is highlighting the difference between apparent contradictions based on Revelation and those based on observation.

I think that technically the term ‘natural’ strictly refers to matter, energy, and physical information. Of course, if we expand the definition (or go by the colloquial meaning) to refer to the collection of general models that we believe correspond to reality – whether physical, intangible, or otherwise – then we can also include gods, ghosts, demons and magic in these models of nature.

You say the crucial difference between Quantum Mechanics and contradictory theology (Gospels, Trinity, etc.) is that the former is observable. I think Ebonmuse said the same thing. But, to me, this always begs the question, how is QM contradictory? Where is the “X & (not X)” derived from the principles of QM? I don’t see it. In fact, if I’m interpreting the physics correctly, ‘wave’ is just a generalization of ‘particle,’ so there isn’t really a problem at all. Thus, the QM analogy is a false one.