On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 15:56, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > On Mit, 2003-01-22 at 13:23, Nuno Nunes wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 03:03, Vikki Roemer wrote: > > > > > Besides, if God sees the 'Big Picture' and mainly cares about that, > > > then why would s/he be just as petty and silly as your nosy neighbor > > > across the way? Hmm? Besides that, I have other reasons why I > > > believe in some sort of god; not for superstitious reasons-- quantum > > > physics. :) > > > > I could be taking your words to mean something you didn't want them to > > mean, but please don't say stuff like that... > > I found it was quite clear that Vikki just said that it was for *her* a > reason to believe in a God entity. She didn't claim it was a proof of > existence or what. > > For me it's the same with the incompleteness theorem of Goedel, in a > way. > > cheers > -- vbi > > -- > featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro
Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant that quantum physics or set theory may sound more sophisticated, but to me they give us no more insight about a hypothetical divine being than lightning or eclipses gave to our ancestors. Believing or not isn't a matter of rationality, it doesn't need explaining. Throwing some bits of hard-to-understand science into it seems very dishonest in some way... as if you were trying to make it sound respectable through obscurity.
