A Blog About Everything...

From Arguments to Truth

2006-08-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

Arguments, i had always believed that it has the power to distinguish between right and wrong. An analogy is in a court of law. The proponents of the truth would be easier to win, simply because it is backed up with many evidences that points towards its victory. While the opposition of truth, they will left either with contradicting explanations, illogical explanations, or even inconsistent with accumulatively true evidences. Hence, with this power of argument, I tend to ask, why don't we do it with religion? Let's argue and the truth shall win! As in written in C.S Lewis Screwtape Letters, the devil hates argument! Since they know they will definitely collapse as all evidences points towards God.

This was my stand yesterday and my days before that. Yesterday, i had achieved a new understanding. From the prayer fellowship, from what i read and ponder, from my chit-chat with my friends, from a reflection of my experiences, i realised that arguments are quite useless in the presence of one fact : human biasness!

Because of human biasness, we tend to sustain our ego, be too prideful to lose in arguing. This might be the main motivation that drives us to argue, so to speak, rationally and objectively. Well, take a case of the dispute between creationists and evolutionists. What people know, is that there might be hidden agendas. For creationists, they have the so called 'propaganda of their religion', as evolutionists would see. While evolutionists are biased that they might be motivated by atheism. But guess what, in arguments between the two, there are still many other hidden motivations! Each and every pride contained in every human beings!

Because of this pride, one refuses to admit lose despite they are losing. They will argue and build up new arguments just to prove that they are not losing yet! Their stand might be weak, irrational, they cant explain everything, but they just dont want to lose! In the Bible, how do the Pharisees explain all the miracles of Jesus? They dont have a full explanation of the miracles, but they just dont want to lose and therefore they hated Jesus! One option was to cater towards ignorance, but ignorance is supposed to be agnostic and not sentimental! We can't judge!
To sum up, winning arguments doesnt necessarily settles that the arguing parties will return to the correct stand. In a court, the losing party will end up with mulky faces walking out of the courtroom. They still disagree with the verdict, though they know it is right, no matter how many 'neutral' evidences declares their lost.

"Love never works coercively. It only works persuasively."

2006-06-22T05:18:00.000-07:00

This quote was by Norman L Geisler, Ph. D, and I obtained it from "The Case for Faith" p. 198. Here, I'd like to assess the validity of the above claim. Does love really works only persuasively? Well of course, from what we learn from God, we knew that it should give freedom. This view is consistent with the acknowledgement of the intrinsic values of human beings, as was mentioned by J.P. Moreland, Ph. D in p.253. Judging human beings using instrumental values is dehumanizing. It is similar to denying the 'free will' that has been given as the highest blessing. But now arises a question. If love just works persuasively, how would you explain a situation where a mother was trying to force her child on drinking, say, a medicine? Surely this violates the above principle isn't it? If we want to stick to it, then the furthest we could say is that the mother should just persuade her child, and not forcing him to drink. By applying a force, perhaps through beating, a common scenarion, it simply means a 'dehumanizing' act, stripping the child of his freewill that has been granted upon him. But a contrary to that situation, for a mother that would let her child suffer would also be crazy. Then how would we resolve this issue?

What I think is that, well, the above quote is true, but incomplete. My guess is that the quote works for people who has reached a certain level of maturity and therefore is able to discern for themselves. A child, therefore, I must say, doesn't have a 'complete' freewill like adults do. And towards them, a dehumanizing act is permissible. But of course, this also means that by treating them based on an instrumental value, the right and wrong question must also be shifted towards the ends of the action; that is, we must judge whether the action has a morally good end or a bad one. Thus, moral standards are not neglected.

Hence, to sum up, if we love or care about something, we should not be coercive but instead, be persuasive. However, this is only valid if consequent party has reached what I termed 'maturity'. Well..actually this can be a general principle that can be applied in many aspects.

In politics for example, freedom of choice, or in other words is democracy, is good. It simply gives back a meaning towards human dignity, which is in accordance with God's will. But the 'maturity' assumption tells us that likewise, democracy is good only when the group of people has reached a mature understanding towards politics. Otherwise, we should adopt the spoonfeeding approach, like that of a mother forcing a child to swallow a medicine. I'm not discrediting democracy. It is good, respectful, but perhaps it works best for a mature society in which freedom of choice can be really exercised without unfair intervention of outer parties.

The next issue that I would tackle is whether a constant act of persuasion would be equal to a coercion. A common misconception is that constant, intense persuasion would mean a 'psychological coercion'. This is a hard issue. But I'll try to explain this by use of an analogy. Well, my point is that it is quite absurd to label an intense persuasion as a coercion. To understand, let's compare it with marketing. One marketing strategy was to make use of psychology. Well, perhaps constant persuasion might be annoying, just like advertisements do, but labeling it as coercion is like sueing McDonald's for 'psychologically affecting' us that we walk into its store and buying their meals.

Comics / Animes

2006-06-12T02:20:00.000-07:00

The most recent 2 comics/animes that immediately became my favourite was One Piece and Naruto. I dunno why, perhaps I like those comics whose main character are strong. Strong in the sense that they believe in themselves, they show determination and have the right principles that act as a resource to their strength. They may be weak, but they are not giving up. In One Piece and Naruto, the 2 main characters, Monkey D Luffy in One Piece and Uzumaki Naruto in Naruto, show these characteristics. Perhaps it's also true for KungFu Boy and Samurai X, my old favourites.

Now, a question that arose is, whether this 'not willing to give up' spirit is relevant for reality? Is a 'sheer determination' in our strengths a good thing? Is it a 'right thing' for us to adopt certain unchanging principles and fight for it till the end? Well, I would think the answer is yes and no.
Stiffness is good. This essence of 'unchanging' is awesome. It represents faithfulness, either to a choice we made or a principle we adopted. But it could be a 2-sided coin. It can give you either a very good impact, or a very bad influence. An unchanging principle grounded on wrong concepts are extremely dangerous, while that which is based on the right principles is the worthiest thing you could ever ask for. Take Zoro in One Piece for example. I think he too, was a man that has his own principles. But too bad, the he has a wrong base for his principle. He was too arrogant when he quoted that "I never believed in Gods, I require none of them." Another example would be like Haku, Gaara, and Kimimaru in Naruto. I think what Gaara said when he appeared for the 2nd time, after he had 'realised' his mistakes makes a lot of sense.

This is a conversation between Gaara and Rock Lee after Gaara defeated Kimimaru :

Gaara : You're the same. If the person you admire is insulted, you became angry. If that person is important to you... To fight for that important person.. (referring to Orochimaru, the most evil). He, (referring to Kimimaru), was the same as Uzumaki Naruto (last time Naruto was fighting Gaara to protect his friend, Sasuke and Sakura). But the person who is important to you isn't always good.

Rock Lee : Really? You don't have to take someone bad as your important person.

Gaara : No... Even if you knew they were evil.. People can't defeat loneliness.

Yep, finally, I also think that comics may give a good or bad influence towards us, depending on how we see them. One pitfall would be, we may be relying on ourselves too often, because of the influence of this believe-in-ourselves spirit advertised heavily in comics nowadays (maybe i can't generalise it coz its just based on the few comics i've read). So perhaps we should learn to notice them and pick just the right thing. Never giving up spirit was great. Faithfulness towards a (correct) principle was awesome. But unlike the characters in those comics, we should rely ourselves on God's power. To add on, perhaps believe-in-ourselves spirit in reality may sound a bit too naive, people may think. Afterall, I also didn't quite agree with the familiar phrase 'if there's a will there's a way'. I think that will is not the only factor. There are others such as ability, or perhaps, opportunity? No one who has a sheer will can become a tennis champion when they wanted to start playing tennis just when they're 20 years old. (Well of course, we couldn't make something that's undergoing a process to be an absolute, but I can say that the probability is nearly zero). But still, having sheer will is great in the sense to maximise your maximum potential and it's been proven to boost your capacity.

To sum up, I believe that comics can give either a very good or very bad impact. Principles are good, it might lead us either to a good person (if we have correct ones) or a very evil person. But still, I admire those who have principles (regardless of whether they're right or wrong) more than those who don't.

Uncertainties

2006-03-15T05:58:00.000-08:00

I'm sure many of you have heard or read about conan the detective, and it was also one of my favourite comics many years ago. One thing, I was always amazed by the accuracy of his hypotheses! (Of course it's a comic, you might argue) But one thing that keeps bothering me is that how does conan knows when he's ready to act? or how does he know that he knows the murderer?

Let's consider an example. Often, most of us had experienced being mistaken before. What we really believe to be correct, for example, might turn up to be wrong. Then we suddenly get enlightened and say "Ah, yeah right, I was so stupid!". We suddenly realised that we have been mistaken. Now the question is, if you are ready to make a decision, how do you know that your decision is the correct one? Aren't you assuming something? That you won't be mistaken? Or that you won't change your understanding in the future? And returning to the conan the detective case, isnt conan assuming that perhaps he was being tricked? That there's no one smarter than him able to trick him into guessing the innocent to be the murderer? This is a hard question to answer.

Practically, if we think this way, then nothing is certain! You can always make the situation to be like 'regressum ad infinitum', as in the case of Descartes doubting everything, when you can always ask "Why didn't you doubt your own doubt?". The situation is similar here. There's simply no conclusion that can be drawn! Well, this is a very important question to address I guess, since this also compromises our faiths as religious people. How do we know that we won't change our perspectives in the future? Does anyone have any idea?

Well, the first part of the question actually have been answered by my senior. Thanks to Lily by enlightening me! =D So, to answer the question : when does we know how to make a decision? The logical answer turns out to be : when you must act or else it's too late. I think this is a reasonable solution. Think about when you're in an examination hall, and you can't do many of the questions. Well, you wont think to get a perfect solution for one question right? You'll just attempt as many questions as you can! Perhaps you then think : This is an easy solution! But truly, many of us doesn't realise it when it comes to different problems in life! And this is what i'm trying to say, that this solution seems to be the best, and it is the result of us being finite, limited human beings! (In the exam halls, it's the time that makes us 'finte')

Yeah, now almost all questions have been practically solved. For people like me, that can be considered quite an idealists, we always have been very careful, or often too careful that we always misses opportunities! To get the absolute is rather far-fetched! And sometimes as an idealist I often asked myself "If everyday I'm improving by a little, then at which point I shall say 'this is it, I can be considered good enough now' ". And I think this has been solved, well, with what a rather empirical solution. And this is supported well with historical examples! Consider the collapse of skepticism! It's argued that it has no practical results, and hence is deemed useless. Indeed, life is too pragmatic... or else...we're forced to be pragmatic...

A Test For Genuity

2006-02-28T07:51:00.000-08:00

Over these past few weeks, I was thinking about the issue of genuity. We know that there are 2 kinds of people, the 'genuine' and the 'fake'. The problem is, how do we distinguish the two?
What standards are we going to use to test genuity? How are we going to find out the truth?
I find this topic a very crucial one to address! First, this is my reaction to the fact that indeed there are 'fake' people that loiters around us. Not only they disadvantaged their 'victims', but they also act as a 'parasite' in the society that spreads uncertainty, that people can't believe in one another, even something that's genuine! Thus, it has been my objective to unmask them, and I hope that I can increase the awareness of the public. So let's get back to the issue. How do we know that something is genuine?

No wonder, the usual attempt was to look at 'indicators'. This might be the form of actions, or behaviors, or anything that supports our hypothesis. For example, if someone estimated that the other person is 'genuinely' hardworking, he might look at indicators simply through observations! If he was found to be hardworking after a few observations, then he is 'genuinely' hardworking! Of course there's a catch! He might pretend to be hardworking! So now a new variable must be introduced : time! I believe that those who were fake will be 'exhausted' to pretend all the time. So..do we have a complete solution now? Sadly we don't!

Here's my point : we can't believe fully a 100% of something just based on observations, evidences, even though we have a 'big random sample' and over a long period of time! Y do i say so? Statistics are always statistics, they never prove anything. Hence, even though you always take abundant samples over a long period of time, you always assume something! Assume that the other person is "not strong enough" to remain as a fake! What I mean is, look at David Blaine! What do u think is the motivation behind his great perseverance?
I'm not saying that he has a 'wrong' motivation, but yeah, didn't it depict what great power humans have? And what could have driven him to do such things? Money? Fame? No offense, but i dunno.. but if those things can drive a man to do such things, to bear until that level of commitment, then how do we know whether there are people, motivated by the same things mentioned above, will not be a fake and persevere to obtain money? fame? or anything?

On the other hand, neither can we distinguish a genuine person! We're always subjective! Look at history! The most genuine person was not believed by many. Look at Jesus Christ! Isn't it a tragedy? Haven't we learnt anything yet??

So what's the conclusion of all? A deadlock situation?

Fortunately, there's one and only solution for this. In the Bible, notice how Jesus had repeatedly differentiates the genuine from the fake. He scolds the pharisees who are deemed as genuine by many people, as a fake! So the answer lies in God's wisdom. What is impossible for men is possible for God... Well, I think this is the only solution, and no other humanly attempts or thoughts would resolve the issue of genuity. We have to ask the answer from Him alone.

The Beauty of Irony

2006-02-13T22:32:00.000-08:00

Perhaps i had gotten this idea a long time ago, now that i just try to formulate it in words.
Here's my simple and straightforward point : Irony conveys a sense of beauty. For me, perhaps it is the greatest, highest, and most beautiful form of artwork i had ever known so far, which seems most intriguing to me. We can find some form of irony in many artworks, starting from Romeo and Juliet, the Korean tv drama series, Comics, or even video games (mainly RPGs)!This is just a pattern that i noticed that applies to almost all 'masterpieces', is that 'irony' is indeed the recipee for the 'beauties' contained in these sources.

Let's take a closer look at some korean tv drama series. In Winter Sonata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Sonata) for example, it's an irony that Jun Sang involves in a serious accident! Imagine a journey without a hurdle, well, no one would actually watched the tv series i guess. Next is the series Autumn in My Heart(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Fairy_Tale). It contains an irony in the sense that Jun-seo indeed fell in love with his long separated younger sister! (You might argue that it is a drama movie so there's supposed to be a twist and turns in the plot. Exactly, and those dramatic twists and turns are things that make up the irony!)

Now, i'd like to discuss about comics. Not trying to promote anything, it's just that i think the most beautiful comic i've read so far is One Piece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_piece). Perhaps it may look childish, but it contains a lot of ironies! The comic even started with an irony; The king of pirates Gold D Roger was about to be beheaded, and the irony is, he was smiling, despite him knowing full well that he was about to die! There are so many examples of ironies you can find in the comic. The frequent flashbacks in the comic often serve to begin the ironic situations. Monbren Norland for example, is depicted as a normal and righteous person, but was beheaded and is called 'a liar', just because he reported to the king that he found an island full of gold. When he accompanied the king to search for the island however, it was no longer there. In fact, the island had 'floated' in the sky. As a result, he was punished, called 'a liar' and beheaded in front of many people including his crews who was with him when he went to the island. This then became a legend, a legend of the east blue, called 'Monbren the liar'.

Thirdly, i'd like to assess the RPG's. Which gamers haven't heard of final fantasy? The most popular RPG (well i can say the best RPG) in the world. Now the reason that we find final fantasy a good game, is particularly because of their storylines. Twist and turns are there, together with ironies! In FF7, midgar, the very 1st city we visited in the game is destroyed later in the game, leaving memories behind. In FF8, it's the Balamb Garden. The same goes for FF9. In FFX, it's an irony that the main character in the game, Tidus, in the ending he vanishes as the 'time' was over. It was said by the fayth that he was just a dream, an illusion. After spending so many hours playing the game, gamers would have been attached to the characters! Well, yeah, in the end you lose everything. It's the taste of irony! But why do we still play the game? Knowing that it has twist in the ending? That it may not end like what we expected? Indeed, it was because the tragedy that makes the game beautiful! Well, yeah, and perhaps there's another reason on why I like most RPGs. Once you finished the game, you will realise that it's over. And you won't get used to not playing it for sometime. That's the effect of playing RPGs. We often think it as a 'dream', living in the ideal, virtual world! Once we 'woke up', it feels as if we had been transported back to the 'not so ideal' world. It's has the same taste as irony! It's ironic that once we came back to the real world, everything finally comes to an end. And what do we get lastly? Nothing! The pleasure won't last after you finished the game.

So far, I've discussed many things about irony. Well, here's an ultimate secret : This recipee for creating a good film, a good comic, a good storyline, a good game, etc, is indeed derived from 1 historical fact! A fact that God, the Creator, had sent his Only Son to save us! And yet, the ironic thing is that we, as creations, as sinful beings, tortured and crucified Him! This is the ultimate irony! God had started this great 'piece of artwork'. Besides saving human beings, He had shown the greatest piece of art for us to witness! And subconsciously, beautiful films, comics, stories, RPGs, all derived the very essence similar to this historical event. Irony!

For your information, more ironies are to be found if we look across the history. Einstein for example, died before he finished his last works, and thus the final equation remain unknown to us. And yeah, of course, many great people died at a very young age. Pretty ironic isn't it? I'm just wondering if this is the continuation of the works done by the 'Hand of God'...a continuation of the 'great masterpiece of art'?

More ironies I can think of :
-It's an irony that those who are willing doesn't have enough opportunity, while those who have the opportunity are not very willing and don't use it to the full potential.
-It's an irony that we search for the best, but the best searches for the worst. (Jesus Christ searches for the sinners)
-It's an irony that the more wealthy you become, the more you feel you need more! The more you feel you are insecure and therefore hard to live peacefully!
-It's an irony that wise people are those who say 'i understand nothing', while the fool often boasts for themselves, but they are the ones who get the opportunity for that 'boasting' since most people look from the 'outside'.
-It's an irony that the people of Israel nowadays, mostly don't believe in Jesus Christ, though they are the so-called "chosen" by God.
-It's an irony that 'straight' people faces trouble, while those unrepentant people lived happily (confirmed in the Bible)
-It's an irony that the more advanced technology is, it is used for evil purposes.-It's an irony that 'what has a beginning has an end'.
-Valentine's day irony : (http://seed1.wevision.com/tt2/board/ttboard.cgi?act=read&db=donghaeng_board2&page=3&idx=8)

Yeah..can't u see this great beautiful piece of artwork? I think it's consistent with one another. The world is created by God. And perhaps it's His style of creating things to be? Well, who knows?But it certainly makes it all look beautiful on the whole =)

Destiny, Freewill and Prophecies (Revisited)

2006-02-04T22:16:00.000-08:00

Lately i've been reassessing my views about destinies, human freewills and the validity of prophecies which might be not so clear then for me. And here's what I got after I rethinked it through, trying to piece them up such that it's compatible with the Bible and other sources.

Let's take a look at the example from the Bible! Jeremiah 31:15 predicts the killings of male infants during the time Jesus was born. Isaiah 7:14 predicts that Virgin Mary will give birth to Jesus, and named him Immanuel. Isaiah 50:6 and Isaiah 53:3-7 predicts Jesus' sufferings, Job 19:25 and Psalm 16:9-10 predicts His resurrection. Well, what's the point of having all these?

I often asked myself, why would Herod make such a decree to kill infants? Why would Virgin Mary named the child Immanuel? Why would people make Jesus suffer? Why would they crucify Him? One might just say : Well, it's the prophecy, it's destiny! Exactly! But now i'm trying to assess what is this that we called 'destiny'? And how does it actually work? By what means?

In my opinion, for destiny to work, it makes use of human ignorance about the prophecies. It's due to Herod's ignorance that he issued a command to exterminate all male infants, which is according to the prophecy. Think about it! If he knows about the prophecy, then he would know that the prophecy is true because in it he issued a command to kill the infants, and thus he must also knew that the child Jesus would escape since there was the continuation of the prophecy that says about Jesus sufferings, he would be ressurected, etc. One might argue that it's impossible that Herod knew about this, exactly, my point is, prophecy works this way, due to our ignorance, we wouldn't do something against it, or intentionally opposing it!

I've stated an example on the other article. Suppose there was a prophet that tells us that we would die on a certain time, say, 50 years later. But practically, we can commit suicide to prove it wrong isn't it? "Dying isn't that easy" is a stupid argument if we look at terrorists who easily blast themselves. Here, we can try to escape the 'prophecy'. I believe no prophecy is to be told.

Next, destiny also bounds our freewill by using the freewill of others. Humans have freewill, but the freewills of other humans are beyond a person's power to control! Hence, destiny calculates that we don't have enough power to fight it! What do I mean by this? When Jesus was crucified for example, I believe that his apostles wanted to fight but they were overpowered. It's make more sense if we take the example about the signs of the ends of age. In Matthew 24:5-7 it was stated that at the end of age, many will come in Jesus name claiming to be Him, that is to be God, and many will be deceived. We will hear rumours of war, but see to it that we are not alarmed. Nation will then rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. Here, we see that we certainly do not have any power to oppose the prophecy! There may be ignorant people that not know about the prophecy, and they act acording to it, they fulfill it! While we who know about the prophecy, are not in the situation to control the situation. There are many opposing groups who is 'made' to fulfill the prophecy. And who are we that we can 'prevent' earthquakes? Who are we to prevent famines? or even rumours of wars? or the establishment of religious groups that, according to the prophecy, will have their leader claiming himself 'God'?

Destiny therefore, is imminent! It also predicts all the rules and regulations, countries policies and acts, such that it will point towards what was destined! In fact, there would be no meteor falls that exterminate living things before destiny is fulfilled, nor a terrorist group launching a nuclear weapon that will exterminate all beings on earth! This is logical, since if there were such a group, surely many nations will rise against them! And this is nothing but working towards the fulfillment of the prophecy.

And those who are reading this, no matter what your status or positions are..i believe, are those who are 'allowed' to know the secrets behind the prophecy and therefore do not have the power to oppose it.

1+1=?

2006-02-03T18:07:00.000-08:00

It may sound funny, but have you ever wondered why is 1+1=2 in the first place? Or perhaps you may hear someone challenging you to explain why 1+1=2? If you're seeking for an answer, this discussion might be helpful.

First and foremost, perhaps there might be some people out there who would pose non-sensical questions such as "why 1+1 =2? why not 3,4 or 5?" Not wrong, but i really wanted to ask them whether they know what they are actually asking. What i mean is that here we're trying to play around with definitions. Two is just a notation for "two" objects. We can interchange the notation "two" with "three", and it doesn't change anything at all so long as they're just notations. Let's imagine that in the ancient times, people has made the symbols of 2 interchanged with 3, and therefore the sequence of numbers goes "132456789". Here, the argument is useless, and the answer on why 1+1=2 is all based upon definitions.

Now, there can be another interpretation when one encounters this question. When one ask why 1+1=2, they're actually asking why, if there's an A, and there's a B, then there's A and B? This seems like a more philosophical question. Well, it's illogical to have A,B and C if we started with only A and B. Let's extend our imagination a little bit. If we have "two" pencils, pencil A and pencil B, and we decided to "sum" it, it's impossible to get "three" pencils. A question would arise as to how do the system knows that we decided to "sum" them up? And how does the third pencil knew that it can inherit the property of the first two pencils? If we think that the third pencil suddenly "pops" up out of nowhere, then taking the 1st two pencils again leaving the third behind, we can sum them as many times as we want, and this would give an infinite amount of pencils enough to cover the entire earth!

Hence, from the two explanations above, I conclude that it is absurd to ask why 1+1=2!

Self-centredness and purposes

2005-12-01T20:58:00.000-08:00

Many people boast about avoiding self-centredness. They often accuse other people that they always tend to ask themselves before they make any decisions, to do or not to do, to go or not to go, questions such as "What's in it for me?" "How does it benefit me?" "What's its purpose for me?".

However, i am skeptic with this view. If there is no purpose for ourselves in doing something, really, why do we bother doing it anyway? Well, you may argue that it is not for ourselves but for the well being of others. To some extent, however, we became satisfied with our actions, and happy about it, am i rite? Many people, in fact, just to satisfy their own happiness, ready to give much of what they have and donate it to poor people, so that people may look good before them, so that they can be satisfied and people praise them and they became famous and known to be generous. Here actually, self-centredness is included. Next, what about a missionary, that is ready to leave everything to spread gospel, risking their own lives? At hindsight, they seem that they do not benefit in anything. But still, they do have a personal purpose for them doing so, that is to do what is according to their own vision! And that is accomplished via missionary! Now is that self-centred? The gray area arises when there is a synchronization between our interests and things that are considered as good. Now, if someone goes to church, and is based on the motivation of being entertained, that is self-centred! What if he doesnt like gospel but he came to hear gospel? Obviously that is not self centred!But of course we should identify why he goes to church! But what if he likes gospel and he came to church to hear gospel? On one hand, one has a duty, while on the other hand, he likes his duty! How to resolve this case?

Here, i'm thinking that multiple interests may come into picture. If we do something, it is not based just on just one purpose! It might be many! Therefore, i am skeptic to those people who ask "What is your purpose in doing this?" "What's your motive in doing this?" We are not robots however, that we always do things on one singular purpose. It's not that simple, and we are not, like programs, do a search until a particular purpose is identified before we do something! Some things we do often don't have a well-defined purpose! Take an everyday example, suppose you are not that thirsty, and you happen to take a glass of water and drink it, while in the fridge there are many other sorts of beverages. Well, why do you drink mineral water and not those other drinks? Well, i doubt that before we drink we always ask ourselves "What should i drink and why?" That would be ridiculous! Sometimes we just do things without questioning, and it would be funny to ask "what is your motivation to drink? to choose a particular cup and not the others? and to drink mineral water and not other drinks?"

Next, it would also be ridiculous to say "I found no purpose in this and so i won't do it" and after that we just laze all the way doing nothing! If that something that we don't do, have, say, a certain amount of benefit, let's assume it to be small, and we don't do it, we should have utilise that time for something of more importance! Something more beneficial! That way the excuse becomes meaningful! Well, it's also ridiculous if someone says that he dont have enough time, or don't wanna waste his time while on other occasions we found him wasting his time doing nothing that is meaningful at all!

To sum up : We are people with uncertainties, unclear purposes and inconsistencies!

Who are "fanatics"?

2005-11-14T08:37:00.001-08:00

Well, here's the meaning of "fanatic" : A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. (Dictionary.com).
The reason I write this article is to, firstly, counter those people who tend to use the word "fanatic" irresponsibly, and secondly, to provide a way of testing whether someone is indeed a fanatic or isn't.
As you have seen above, "fanatics" are related to an unreasonable enthusiasm, an absurd obsession towards something. Imagine a person who likes the number 7 for example, and every clothes he's wearing contains the number 7 on it, and during exam in which he actually can do very well, he intentionally aim at "77", well, perhaps a bit exaggerated, but you got the idea. Now if we pose a question to those person, why would you do that? He'd surely have no answer, the most he can give was "Well, because i like 7!" Simply no other logically supporting reason. That's what fanatic is all about.
Often, when people mentioned about fanatic, they're speaking about something that contains many choices, such as numbers, colours, football clubs, etc. Therefore, we can't apply the term fanatic to something absolute, or even something that contains some "truth" value in it, or something that should be done by a logically right person. For example, we can't say someone is fanatic of doing well in exams, or someone is fanatic of searching for truth, or someone is fanatic of caring towards others. That would be absurd!! Well, what about fanatic towards religion? This is what i want to discuss below.
When a person accuses another person of being fanatic towards a particular religion, he actually doesn't get the whole idea. Well, what he's saying is true, but that is if only he has developed a concept that religion is merely a choice. It's not absolute, therefore we can just choose whether it's A or B or C, just as simply choosing which numbers are to be our favourite, whether it's 5 or 7 or 9, etc. Seriously, many people still have that concept! Religion is indeed not a choice, we shouldn't stick to one religion and say "Well, i shall stick to my choice since it's simply just a 'choice' ". Wrong! Religion serves to answer everything that goes under the heavens, and to teach us the "truth". If we stick to one and simply neglect others, and we simply defend ourselves based on what we've learnt about that particular religion, and not bother to learn about others, we could have become a fanatic!! At least, we should do a comparative study towards all religion, and only then we would be able to make our conclusion about which one is true!! You may say "it's an impossible task!!" Well that's an assumption, and you might never know for in the Bible it's written that those who search for truth will eventually finds it.
The final question that arise is : how do i know whether a person is a fanatic? The answer lies on logic. A person is not a fanatic if he's reasonable. Here's a scenario for an example : Supposed a person say that he's not going to believe in a particular religion since there contains contradictions in its Holy Scriptures. Logically, that person should have now believed in a religion that contains no contradiction in his religion's Holy Scriptures! If it actually contains contradictions, we can say that he's actually being fanatic, that he simply wants to defend his religion by throwing those arguments which indeed destroys his own standing. That he's actually being unreasonable! Well of course, he should be clearly aware of what's a contradiction and what's not, and not based on one's own interpretation to judge whether it is indeed a contradiction. One way to find out : research!
To conclude, fanatics are unreasonable people who are blinded by their blind faiths. What they're trying to do is just to defend their own stand no matter what, whether it's right or wrong, while those who purely search for truth, can be easily seen by certain characteristics : they will have a strong standing, simply no contradictions in their philosophy, and most of all, they'll constantly try to reflect and question their own faith, open for criticisms, willing to study more and they're not afraid to talk about epistemology.

Devil's not that great afterall

2005-10-31T22:52:00.001-08:00

Who says that devil is smart? Who says that satan is intelligent? Well..the answer really does depend on what you considered to be "smart" i think. If what you considered smart is rich in knowledge, almost all-knowing, perhaps the answer would be yes, satan is far more intelligent than us human beings. But here i've come up with some ideas that shows that satan's actually not that great! I really don't know what's happening but the issue is interesting to be raised.
My first evidence supporting my argument is that satan is indeed a fool because he rebels against God! One might argue that it is because of his rebellious nature, and jealousy drives his actions, but doesn't he understand the basic underlying principle that the Creator is definitely greater than any creation? That Creator will always be far more powerful than any creation? Take human and robots for example, well, this might not be a perfect analogy as you might argue that robots can perform calculations faster than humans, but we, humans are definitely more advanced and complicated than any possibly invented computers! A biologist might support my argument. Till today, no one knows exactly how does the neural network inside our brain works, compared to, say, a microchip inside our computers. We're definitely more "powerful" in that sense. Though there might be some future predictions that computers will somehow gain "consciousness" by the next century, still, we are more powerful, and superior to computers. Just plug of their battery source and they will die off. Similarly, going back to the argument, devil will not win from rebelling against God! Just as a computer can't win from human beings.
Next thing..this has really confused me, but the devil seems, in some way, bound to God's authority. They are afraid of God! How do i think so? It's because the devil does nothing in refuting God's revelation. What i mean is, God's revelation inside te Bible said that Jesus is the only truth. This statement excludes all other possibilities. But the devil does not do anything to at least, make this unclear. We've come across many examples through films. If someone says "I am John", and the other identical person says "No, I am John", than that would create a confusion isn't it? But in the scenario the devil seems to keep quiet, while we know that he has got the power to, say, create a religion and inside it's "holy scriptures" written another person who says that he's the only truth. That would certainly create a confusion! What i see is this.. I suspect that there has been an "invisible battle" between God and the devil, and what we're seeing now is the outcome. The fact that there's only one scripture, that is the Bible, in which it is stated clearly that Jesus is the only way of truth, is the outcome of that invisible battle, which means that the devil is losing. Well, perhaps the battle has started long ago. The devil wanted to create a confusion by the similarity of the live of the ancient God Osiris-Dionysus compared to those of Jesus Christ. But as we know today, the more you want to "censor" something, the more clue that you have to say "it is there". The presence of the fakes indeed proves that the real one is actually present. Pirated cd's would mean that there's an original version of that cd. Moreover, to speak in a more general way, the presence of many religions in this world doesnt prove that there's no absolute truth! Indeed, all of them reflects the presence of that one absolute!
Then why would be the devil so stupid? Not stupid, just "far less intelligent" than God. We, as human beings, are not able to see the "invisible battles", the real scenarion that was happening. But all of these just strengthen my proof! The belief to supranatural beings, ghosts, by those who does not actually hold truth in their hearts, is another proof! Those who have strong faith is unlikely to believe in those, let alone encounter them. Those cheap tricks are, i suspect, to divert the attention to those who are not aware of the presence of truth, or make them believe in some other things other than truth. While to us believers, presence of devil means presence of God, and we are not afraid to satan anymore since we are blessed with the Holy Spirit within us.
To conclude, devil is not that great, and we humans are not supposed to be afraid of the devil. Be open minded, and perhaps you'll be able to see the big picture. What the devil try is just to create confusion, and nothing more, and if we hold fast to truth, we will be able to see them clearly.

What according to me is beautiful in this world?

2005-10-31T22:52:00.000-08:00

What's beautiful in this world? Generally, people would say things such as friendships, love, flowers, their childhood lives, panoramas, nature, etc.. I'll bet that no one would suggest unhappy things such as tsunamis. Not wrong, but here i'd like to express my own opinions and thoughts. Honestly, if anyone were to pose to me this question, say two years ago, i'd most probably give the same answer as most people. But lastly i've been thinking and searching for the answer, and somehow my perceptions towards all things have changed since then, on which i'll illustrate below. First of all, let's start with an analogy. Perhaps many of you have been too a painting museum where famous and "beautiful" paintings of all times were displayed. Browsing through all the paintings, we notice that not all the paintings express happy times. Some may depict a sad and gloomy situation, perhaps a village ruined by a hurricane, or victims of disasters. Why is that so? Why do they classify them as "beautiful"? This has given me the idea. Perhaps, most of us think in a different point of view. While most people think as they were those people in the paintings who experience those disasters, I tend to think the other way, as the person who sees the painting as a whole. For me, i'd say that all things are indeed beautiful, including the disasters, and everything. In fact, life is beautiful. Perhaps some of you would say "nonsense! you're not the one who experience those mishaps" But really, i'd now tend to see things as if i were another person viewing the painting, even if i'm suffering from any miseries right now. Well..if i were asked what makes that beautiful, i'd have no answer. For me, it's simply life itself which is beautiful. The constant flow of time..we can imagine our lives to be a film which is being played, and we're simply following the flow. Some of us would be having a tragedy, a comedy, but all were just a drama of life. Some of us were in the "climax", some in the "anticlimax" of it. And how beautiful it is to observe and enjoy the "films". Unexpected things might happen, but it will only happen once, the film can't be rewinded. And the fact that there's a definite time in which we live in this world makes it even more beautiful. To quote what achilles said in "the troy" : he mentioned that even the gods are envious of us, mortals. Yeah, that makes some sense to me. More than what i've told u above, I also think that, it's not actually "life" that's beautiful. It's not the painting that's beautiful, but a beautiful painting talks more about the painter. Similarly, it's not our life that's beautiful. I'm not saying that it's not, but my point is, that the Designer of our llives are beautiful! God is beautiful! Now, if anyone of us would say that something is beautiful, say a particular song is beautiful, or anything, picture yourself as a character in a painting, saying that some object in the painting is beautiful. Here it becomes clear. You're actually praising not the object in the painting, but the painter. It's the heart of the painter that creates everything. His emotions are the starting point of everything, and we're here to enjoy everything, and just following the flow....

Science vs Religion : End of the debate.

2005-10-31T22:51:00.000-08:00

At first glance, science and religion may seem to be in contradiction with one another. While science has been produced systematically through facts and experiments, religion on the other hand simply based on faith. Today, the gap between science and religion has become much more wider. More people are starting to depend themselves fully on human achievements, and they ignored religion. Theories are developed by great thinkers to explain "alternative" ways in explaining the "unexplainable", such as "how does universe started at the very beginning?" or "where do humans came from?". The purpose of this article is to clear this confusions for those who asked themselves "which one to choose?"
Ecclesiastes 1:13-15 :
'I devoted myself to study and explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.'
Now, compare the above quote from the Bible with our situation right now. Many scientists are struggling with the "unification" of sciences, that is, to unify the 4 forces and therefore reveal the truth, the origin of universe itself. Superstring theory that has been claimed can unify quantum mechanics and relativity has been established, despite no one so far has been able to prove it due to the complexity of the calculations, and the lack to obtain physical evidences to the theory. The theory also predicts that the unification of all forces occurs at the Planck energy, or 10E19 billion electron volts, in which there is not enough money on earth from all countries combined together to generate this astronomical power. Conclusion? A dead-end.
Some people also rely themselves on the Big Bang theory that they think may explain the creation of the universe. Well, for this particular issue, they too, have made a fatal mistake. They predicted that there is no God since Big Bang theory explains everything, but they failed to realise how do "organisms" started to exists, in which the answer can be found on religion. An attempt to think that the Big Bang occurs by itself is also a false way of thinking, since no one can explain what happened before the Big Bang. About the existence of organisms, scientists has now been working on the field called abiogenesis. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule ) Even if they succeeded (suppose), what is there to explain the creation? Remember that long long ago when first organisms were "created", all the chemistry involved would be by chance, not by specifically controlled reaction in labs such as we would have today, and the probability of such specific reactions to take place would be diminished until it vanishes. Maybe humans can make bacteria one day, but whatever it is, there's no way they can make a multilevel organisms, particularly humans, which is required if they were to disprove religion. If they claim they can make bacteria and they say that religion has been disproved, then perhaps the mistake is in their own understandings. The Bible only says that God first created organisms, but doesn't say that we, people, can't create simple organisms. Maybe the Creationists might want to think this way. Finally, whatever the outcome, there's certainly no way for us , still, to create multilevel organisms, especially human. Here is another dead-end.
The celebrated Darwin's theory of evolution which has been thought to explain the origin of humans also encounters a dead end, in which there is still a "missing link" that no fossil of intermediate stage between human and apes has been found. Again, another dead-end.
So far, perhaps the existence of science is only to prove the Bible right, that all scientific attempts are meaningless. If you were saying that you refuse religion as there's no proof, then why don't you rather say that you believe it since you can't disprove it? Actually, there's proof to religion. What we see today in fact is the proof. Another proof, perhaps, unlike science, is an unseen one, and lies inside the religion itself. It's simply psychological, emotional, you know it by yourself. All in all, arrogant people are those who think that they know everything when they doesn't.
Here's a useful analogy :
Imagine we were once transported to an unknown place, that seems like a maze in which we don't understand anything about that particular place. We has been living there for so long, and do our own "experiments" in exploring the place. However, so far we had not found our way out of the maze. With us, we were given a book, a book that explains everything, and even the way out from the maze, but we refused to believe it as we had been so familiar as we have explored all the possible ways out of the maze. But still, we can't disprove the book yet since what the book says about truth is different from ours. Then, would we simply ignore the book given to us? The only way is to "read and try" it, am i right?

Ghosts

2005-10-31T22:50:00.001-08:00

Ever heard claims that some people can actually see the supranatural? For those who can't see, well, you may treat this issue in 2 ways. You may say "I don't believe, there's no evidence" or "I believe". However, both are assumptions and may or may not be true, in which we never know the answer. Whichever the truth, one side may hold knowledge, while the other may just cause a waste of time of considering the useless information. For those who can really see, you might want to help me in my investigation, as personally i can't see those kind of things.
Based on my thoughts, what those people see as "ghosts" can be interpreted as 2 beings. First, souls of the dead. Second, the devil in disguise. Whichever the case, both gives us advantages. If it was really souls of the dead, then what we see is actually not fantastic anymore. It's part of nature, and it may be explained by science investigations. Sadly, scientists had rare encounters regarding such events and there's hardly a clue. However, then we can infer that not all dead people would become ghosts, as if it is the case, then those people who can really see the dead would see these spirits flocking the streets, as people who already dead are numerous. Ghosts they saw, therefore, must have a link, similar backgrounds on why they actually became ghosts that we see. You might want to investigate.
Personally, I think that the second case might be the truth. The devil itself disguises as spirits. The Bible reveals that spirits of the dead were already "transported" to heaven or hell. Will there be an error? a not yet "transported" spirit? From my point of view, it's certainly the devil. Those people who wanted to obtain supranatural powers, they respect the dead. They bow to their grave. Then they can perform supranatural powers which also, amazingly, came in physical contact! If the dead were to be the culprits, they surely creates havoc since they already have access to the physical world! (This might caught the interests of physicists, as it violates the conservation of energy theorem. If we move a thing, chemical energy is converted to mechanical. What about supranaturals? Energy created out of nothing? Could it be the clue to dark energy, that dark energy comes from higher dimensions?) The devil, in other way, promises power to those who bows to them, who consider them as "God".
Investigating the occult, if it leads to the conclusion that the devil is the culprit, may also reveals about religion. However, we may not assume that devils can't disguise. They can disguise into "Gods" or supranatural beings, or devils in human fantasies, other religions etc thereby distorting our conclusions about religion.
This is just a story, and it's trueness you might want to question. But one person whom I know, claimed that she can see "ghosts", and after she goes to church, and became a Christian, she no longer have that ability. Here, I tend to think that if what she said was true, then the "ghosts" appeared in people visions are actually "devil" as devil has something to do with religion, for certain.
Another vague piece of evidence, I thought. We know that modern people seemed to have less belief in such things, simply because they have less encounter of such events. Why does it so? I think it's because spirits were actually "afraid" that truth about higher dimensions might be revealed as it may bring a clue to religion. If people believe in religion, then they would bow to God, not the devil.
Conclusion? Well, that the truth is still a question mark (good job by the devil for keeping the secrets until today, but i won't give up)
(For we who can't see ghosts, are we supposed to be afraid that someday we will encounter the supranatural? No, why? Fear of the supranatural is somewhat similar to fear of death. Before the death itself, in this case, before the encounter itself, the fear becomes meaningless, it haunts us when actually the truth is still unquestionable)

The Theory of Assumptions

2005-10-31T22:50:00.000-08:00

The reason why I write this article is because I had noticed that many people have developed wrong concepts, where they confused themselves between facts and assumptions. Well, at first glance, this seems an easy task, but in reality, many people had failed in distinguishing the two.
This is my philosophy, which is derived from my own thoughts, that we must first learn about how notice assumptions before we conclude upon anything. The assumptions we had noticed, however, should be valid. It is particularly useful in investigations of anything. Simply by noticing assumptions, we may end up to a true conclusion. Take the ancient theory which claims that earth is flat for example. Ancient people's thoughts that time were simply based on assumptions. Assumptions on what? Assumption that if world is round, then the water will "pour down" and eventually no water is left? Assumption that there is no gravity? Assumption that there cannot be such a conceivably huge sphere? Assumption that what they think is right? -> the common assumption people have till today They have no facts that can support their arguments. Perhaps those who can think out of the box by noticing assumptions were those who succeeded in proving that earth is round. Those are people who return to fundamental concepts, assessing them thoroughly and questioning basic ideas that had seeped in other people's thoughts as facts and no longer an assumption.
First, let's discuss about the source of assumptions. The most common source of assumptions are opinions, be it made by us or by people around us. Opinions are rather unconvincing, its true value can't be determined and unlike facts, which is 100% true. To distinguish between opinions and facts is unquestionably an easy task, but when it goes to assumptions, what happened is that there is tendency for us to think that something goes this way, or that way. Our psychology is affected by the overflow of "wrong" ideas in our society that blinds our concepts. Here, I provide magic acts for example. Do you believe that a magic is based on "tricks" or is it by "supranatural"? Some people say tricks. Perhaps they had seen some simple magic that uses tricks, and the trick was made known to them. Here, they made an assumption, called inductive assumption, that since 1 magic they know was performed by trick, then all magics should have their tricks. Well, I'm not saying that all magic does not have a trick, it's just that, well, who knows, that magicians who performed unusual tricks actually can manipulate the supranatural powers, or perform tricks in the hyperspace. How do people who not yet went and study in a magic school, have any idea about an oath that magicians can't tell the secrets that there are actually magic that uses supranatural powers?We have simply no idea.
The theory of assumptions, as i suggested, is not a theory based on something technical. It's something that have to do with philosophy, the way we think. My idea was to combine science and history. We use science to investigate things, and how we come up to a conclusion, we may look to historical examples. In other words, questions that we have to answer are like "How are we supposed to think such that, in we live in the ancient times, we belonged to those who think that the earth may not be flat?" "How are we supposed to think that earth is not the centre of the universe?" . If we made such careful steps, I believe, the controversies in science can be solved, such as the contradiction between the quantum mechanics and special relativity. Perhaps we may question the theories we had earlier. Something basic, that everyone may not think that it actually holds the answer to the everything, and was the last piece of evidence to complete the whole puzzle.
Perhaps 2 last advices from me, remember that probability of something can't be neglected. Any assumptions were possible to a certain probability until a fact is established. Second, if what you do follows right logical steps, trust yourself. As in a chess game, dont assume you must be falling into a trap when you see what looks like a good move.
(Extra) Some common assumptions :
-God is created by men, there's no God
-All religions are only to teach us to be good
-There's no such thing as hyperspace
-(In magic) There's no way he can do this

Critics of "The Bible Code"

2005-10-31T22:49:00.000-08:00

"The Bible Code" is a book that says that there are encryptions contained in The Bible. It's dealing with the Bible in its original Greek language as an object of cryptology. The encryptions may be in the form of hidden words or sentences, and is read by either reading the Greek alphabets by leaving uniform spaces, like reading "abcdefg" as "aceg" (1 spacing) or "abcdefghij" as "adgj" (2 spacings), or by reading the alphabets either vertically or diagonally (like in crossword puzzle) in the context. The informations said to be contained in The Bible by reading those encryptions are said to be "shocking", as the informations contain historical records in it. The name "Newton", is found, by encryption, adjacent to the word "gravity". The name "Einstein", is found, near the word "relativity". There are so many shocking evidences! The World Trace Center 9/11 event and the case of murder of John F Kennedy are also said to be mentioned in the Bible. Well, the question is, is it a coincidence? The author may insist that it is not a coincidence, as the probability of finding such things, if it is not a coincindence, is extremely small! However, there are some things that still baffled me and thus I still say that it is a coincidence and I don't believe that the Bible contain such things. Here are my points :
First, how do you assume that The Bible contain such things? Because it is the "Book of Truth"? because it is the "Revelation of God" itself? Actually, you've made a fatal mistake! Yes, what if it is the "Revelation of God"? So far, i've learnt that the authors of The Bible is inspired by God, but God does not have it ready word-by-word for the authors to copy! For it to contain encrypted messages, it's choices of vocabulary must be specific. Hence, since the words are not really from God, the encrypted messages are merely gibberish!
Secondly, about the locations of where such encrypted messages are found, are simply at random. It does not show any regular pattern. And how do we know that it is not a coincidence when we found a certain name or word in it? The Bible is a very long text, and we know that the longer a text is, the higher is the probablity to find "coincidental" encrypted messages.
Thirdly, i know that the author is definitely wrong when he says that there contains an encryption saying that the world ends in 2006, when a war will occur. He adds on that we should therefore prevent this from happening by things like prevent military agression, reduce political conflicts, etc. What is this anyway? If it's a destiny, who can prevent it from happening? If we can prevent it by our actions, it's certainly not a destiny (Refer to posted message "About Horoscopes and Prophecies"). Here, it shows that the author contradicts himself and was inconsistent.

Living as a Hedonist

2005-10-31T22:48:00.000-08:00

Hedonists are people who seeks pleasure as their priorities in life. However, is this kind of living actually acceptable? Is it rewarding? Yes from their own perception, but actually it doesn't! Why do i say so? I'll elaborate below.
Firstly, we should know our own positions. We can't deny the fact that we are here, on earth today, is not because of our own efforts! We can't deny that this life was a gift, and we have certainly no right towards our own lives! Because we understood nothing! And we do nothing, not even struggle at the start to get our lives! This may seem absurd as it contradicts the recognised basic human rights, such as right to live, right to voice opinions, etc. Well, for me, there's no such thing as the so-called human rights. What was there is that we have NO right to end other's life, NO right to restrict others from voicing there opinions, etc. We simply doesn't have any right! As an analogy, imagine that we are all beggars, and one day a person came and give us lots of money. Are we then have the right to spend that money? Practically yes, but what if the person managed to take back all the money before we even spend it? We have actually no right to insist that it is ours right? Thus, from the beginning, it's clear that we have actually no right upon that money as a gift.
If you're a religious person, then this analogy would alter a bit. You believe that God, the Creator, exist. Hence, you would not spend that money to do things not acceptable by the person who give that money to you. Thus, you would not spend your life doing things that are not acceptable according to God. This is how we should actually spend our lives on earth!
Next, let's talk about hedonism. Why do people live as hedonists? They do so to maximise their lives. There are some who "live to the fullest, since we live only once". Actually, for non-religious people who live their lives this way, you're just searching for a meaning out of the meaningless. For these people, yes, you may think that you live only once, so what? after live you'll die eternally anyway (you think). All of us are people who live in the present, and by the time, say, you were 80 years old, would you mind whether you have satisfy all your pleasures in life? I don't think so. This is like asking "Would you mind that yesterday you suffered or you were happy?"No because it was in the past! Hence, by the time you face death, it doesn't differ much! Time flies, and for these people, life's just like a dream, that it ends after a while. So would u mind that tonight you had a bad dream or a sweet dream? For me, i don't! Anyway, so far you have not even take into consideration about "What if God really exists and the religious people were actually right?"
Well, I may not know about all religions, but people from different religions must have known their consequences. In Christianity, based on the book called "Purpose Driven Life", life on earth was given a "test", a "temporary assignment" or "trust" as analogies. Life on earth is just a very small part, as we humans were made to live for eternity.

About Horoscopes and Prophecies

2005-10-31T22:45:00.000-08:00

Many of us would believe in horoscopes or even go to prophets or soothsayers in order to see their future or determine their so called "destinies". However, think again, is it logical? are these predictions reliable? The answer is no! I have a quite strong proof to say that it is wrong.
First, let's talk about horoscopes. This thing about horoscope had caught my attention few months ago. So I started looking on articles explaining the idea behind it, and how do one obtain such predictions. Horoscopes are based on astrology. It takes account the position of planets, the moon and the sun relative to the earth. To determine one's horoscope, an astrologer must obtain information about the positions of the planets, moon and sun relative to the earth during the time he was born. Then this is drawn in a complicated, circular graph, with the earth at the centre. Then, to see that person's horoscope in a particular time, the astrologer must obtain another information, about the positions of planets, moon and the sun on that particular time. Not to mention any detailed process, people who "make" horoscopes are certainly making something based on the ancient theory that was proven false! That earth was the centre of universe! Now, how can, anything, that was based on something false, turned out to be true or even reliable? This is illogical! It's like doing arithmetic when our basic of 1+1=3, which is impossible! Another point is that, horoscopes that we see like on weekly bulletin are not accurate since it made generalisations. How is it possible that, say, all people of the same zodiacs in the world would experience the same thing like said in the horoscope. Probability-wise, this is very very very risky.

Now, about prophecies. I've heard people going to prophets to see when will they attain success in life, when will they die, and so on. Before we proceed, notice that we have made an assumption, that we believe in destiny, and there is only one destiny for a person, and this can't be changed! Thus, what the prophet say is true and will happen no matter what, otherwise, what point is it to come to the prophet if our actions could itself determine our own destinies?
Now, you may say that "yeah, I believe in 1 destiny that can't be changed, and that the prophet can tell me my destiny, and everything he said is right and can't be avoided no matter what". Okay, but consider one case : suppose the prophet tells you about the time, place of your death. This means you can't die before and after that time, and must die in the destined place. But now since we know, we can make the predictions wrong, isn't it right? Suppose the prophet says that a certain person would die 15 years from then. However, that person may commit suicide (well, it's actually practicable, but not practical of course) to prove that the prophet is wrong. The person may also go to another place so far away to avoid the destined place. There's a contradiction in here. Thus, this proofs that prophecy is, like horoscopes, unreliable. To add on, our destinies that encompasses our actions can't actually be told. Example is like if we're told beforehand that we're gonna eat or do something this evening. If we're told, then practically we are still able to change our "destinies". What is called destiny, is what can't be changed, such as the fact that we live in this earth, or the judgement day. That's destiny!