I wouldn't go as far as saying that quantum mechanics proves that God exists, even though that is a common claim these days; that's why I referred to neo-mystics. What I think I can say for sure is that people who invoke randomness to support any point of view are being irrational, because ultimately they are supporting their position on a confession of ignorance.

On the other hand, the burden is on the theist side to demonstrate that the principles, or the paradoxes, that must necessarily exist behind apparently random phenomena are related to some concept of God. This is, in a way, what parapsychologists are working on. With little success so far, I must add, although their failure has nothing to do with the issue, it's just that the problem is ridiculously difficult. I have found my own way to solve the problem and already solved it to my satisfaction, but I experienced tremendous failure trying to explain my solution to others so I don't bother anymore.

In any case, my point was that people should be more aware that it's not OK to invoke randomness as a rational explanation for physical phenomena because randomness is either illogical or simply a confession of ignorance. As far as I'm concerned, that is a major flaw in the theory of evolution and the only reason I personally don't buy it.

I also find any debate on freewill absolutely nonsensical. The issue seems so simple to me to the point that I don't understand why others don't understand it. My only explanation is that they get confused because they don't know what they are talking about.

• Your definitions, not mine - yanniru - August 15, 2001 - 22:58 UTC
  • That's not what I said - aurino - August 16, 2001 - 14:07 UTC