Re: survival skills for teenage geeks
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.
Reply to: