I think i'm mad. Right Desiree ? ...

Imagine vast oceans of water and all that resides are 2 islands opposite ends of the world. Each island has their own form of government system, citizens who preach what their rulers command, and a military so infinite with limitless powers. As time went by, each island grew in strength and population and the need for land was essential. Soon there was a battle between the 2 islands, in a fight for land and power. And that fight went on forever…

Now instead of islands, let us replace the 2 entities with a different notion. Let us replace the islands and name them ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ and both sides take arms in a battle that has raged since the start of time. The analogy sounds like it came from a script by Tolkien, except this was how the Christians saw the concept of ‘Good’ against ‘Evil’. The land which the ‘Good’ held was often called ‘the soldiers of Christ’ and the land of the ‘Evil’ was the ‘Army of Darkness’. Of course all these were just terms given to them by scholars who studied the Christian Faith. They were all in essences, mortal men.

So why am I telling you all this? I would like to examine the meaning of Evil. And to do so, I will need to trace back the roots of evil and the purest of its forms. Good and Evil can never be seen like an entity since it is a concept, unless it’s baked like a cookie but that’s not really the point. A person can be called good at the instance of him doing a deed which portrays him as good, and that same person can be called evil when he does something which portrays him as evil. Just like how a knife is only a knife, it’s purpose is to cut things. However if the knife cuts the wrong things, like a person and kills, it is therefore used as a weapon and considered Evil.

Does Evil even exist? Epicurus argues of how God can exist if Evil exists. Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of a God who cares about the matters of mankind, assuming absolute concepts of benevolence, knowledge, and power. There are many formulated arguments to support Epicurus works, one of such goes; If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exist, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

The idea of God not in existence can be forged in a logically sound argument. However the premises of which the argument is based upon can be called into question. What if God, rather then being characterized in terms of knowledge, power and goodness, is defined in a more metaphysical way, for example, as the ground of being, or as being itself? The answer will depend on having defined God in such purely metaphysical terms, one can go on to argue that such an entity will also possess at least very great power, knowledge and moral goodness. If so, evil is a problem.

However, if God is conceived of in a purely metaphysical way, and if no connection can be forged between the relevant metaphysical properties and the possession of significant power, knowledge and goodness, then the problem of evil is irrelevant. But if that is the case, God would cease to be a being that is of religious attitudes or a ground for believing that fundamental human hopes lie upon.

We can also argue that some evils are such that their actuality, or at least the possibility, is logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, in which case it is not true that a perfectly good being would want to eliminate such evils. Take for example, the Vatican’s stand on using contraceptives. They oppose the issue because it goes against pro-life, however the prevention of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies outweigh the standing order. (Or that’s what a lot of Catholic couples tell me.)

A catholic priest or St Augustine to be precise, argues that Evil does not exist. Instead the notion of evil can exist within a being. Just like how one might say, white does not exist but a white table exists. He goes on to further add that the existence of Evil within a being is not because of creation but by a negation of Good within. The interpretation made by St Augustine can be told of a being as a carrier of Evil but never being Evil itself.

The way I see it, if a being is just a carrier of Evil, Evil would be something like a virus that infects. However that same interpretation can be said of Good as well since both Evil and Good are concepts of the opposite ends of the scale (a duelist ideology which stats that there are always opposites in a being like a Ying and a Yang). So what do you call a person who has done neither Good nor Evil? I cannot find a word to describe a person of such since he is more or so left in limbo. However going by Christian theological context, a person who has neither done any Good nor Evil is still Evil since everyone was born with Original Sin. I won’t go into explaining the concept of Original Sin since it would be digressing! Not too mention there are people who don’t believe in a God.

Ok, maybe the idea of Evil and Good in Christian context is too depriving of breathing space. Look at today’s society and think of what is evil. Unless you are very liberal to the concept of homosexuality, the norm would consider homosexuality as evil. This understanding of homosexuality being evil has to do with the influence of the community we live in. Why do I say that? Because the ancient Greeks held favorable views of homosexuality between male youths and adult men, their society accepted that the act of homosexuality was not evil.

What does that tell us about the understanding of Evil in our modern day society? We can say that our society is ever changing, which also means that an act that was once considered ‘not-evil’ can be considered evil today if the society deems so. But what makes an act Evil? Plato argues that what we call Evil is mere ignorance and what is good is that which everyone desires. I see flaws in his idea, because everyone wants money and sex (think of prostitution and greed), does that mean it is good? Also, ignorance as said in the dictionary is the lack of knowledge. Unless I’m misinterpreting the meaning of ignorance, I cannot understand how one person can have the lack of knowledge since everything we understand of and experience is knowledge itself. If there is another meaning towards the word ignorance, someone needs to add that into the dictionary.

Of course a politician would say that what makes them create a rule is because the act is judge by them as evil. Which we all know is a white lie since most of the rules are just for their personal benefits. I did mention white lie since it does help the society in some way or other…. I think.

However majority of today’s society takes after moral universalism. What is that? It’s almost like Plato’s Theory of Ideas whereby the source or justification of a system may be thought to be what is common among existing moral codes, or the commands of a God. An example of an organization which practices this concept is the United Nations.

Within the realm of religion and society, people have the idea of Evil or what they deem evil. However there are many gray areas which are often hard to explain, such as the example of a man killing another man in self defense, is that considered Evil? Defining Evil would be almost impossible because of the restrictions between society and religion. Even the notion of killing as being evil is called into question when judges sentence people to death, especially in Singapore where a person can get hung for the possession of drugs.( I know, it’s a cheap shot at the government)

Desiree says:blogging is like writing in a diary...just that the words get on "paper" faster...cause u're typing

Desiree says:but then u realize pple u dont want reading it are reading...and u'll need a new way to release the embarrassment(if any)

Desiree says:blogging is good release if u feel well....lost...

So.
I think i like a girl call Angela.
Thank God nobody remembers or reads this blog ! Ha Des !

Thanks Desiree for editing my blog !

Is there a god?

There is no scientific proof that god exist, however, there are a few reasons why we can speculate with reasonable doubt that there is a god in our universe. Firstly let me define chance, it is the probability with analyzes of a random phenomena. What is Random? One might say it is contents with no regularities.

There are 8 planets and a sun in our solar system. And only one planet has the ability to harbor life. Rationally we can say that the chance for a planet to harbor life in our solar system is 1/8. Now, what is the chance that majority of living organism on this planet need water to sustain life. Well, we can say since three-quarter of the planet is covered by water, the chance of life dependent on water would be ratio of water multiply by the total amount of species that are dependent on water on this earth. Now, just by using these 2 ratios, (there are many more however I will not go into detail.) What is the probability that a planet in our solar system has the ability to sustain life that is dependent on water? I would have to answer, one-eighth multiply by the total ration of species dependent on water on our planet. The answer would be lesser then a 0.001 % chance of that happening. Would it also imply that, it is impossible of such a thing to happen.

But one might say, IT DID HAPPEN. Alas we can say something with a lesser then 0.001% chance of happening did happen, was as good as doing the impossible? And was is not the term for doing the impossible called a miracle? Rationally it would be more sensible to say, a greater power has created this planet we live in with such detailed forms.

St. Thomas Aquinas said in the Quinquae viae the 5 proofs of the existence of God. One of which is the argument of Design. He says, all natural bodies in the world act for ends. These objects are in themselves unintelligent. To act for ends is the characteristic of intelligence. Therefore, there exist an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends, and we call this being God.

Through the times, there have also been scriptures which state not only does God exist, but God has also send messengers (Prophets) to us throughout the centuries. We do not specifically pin-point the Catholic Bible, but rather, we can look at examples from the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the Qur’an. The most obvious of all messengers was Jesus Christ whom was send by God 2000 years ago, but also remember that after Jesus Christ, during the 6th Century, the Prophet Muhammad came along. And even before Christ, Prophets like Moses and Noah received the word from God. A non-believer might point out that these people are just making a flux of the existence of God, play-acting to make others belief there was a God.

However, if we considered that human’s back then were pretending there was a God sending them messages, how is it possible that the 3 core religions have received the same word from God, at different time periods, and also take into consideration that each of the 3 religions that were given the word by God was from different and vast areas.


It does not sound logical especially when we consider the Catholic’s and the Muslims were at war during a certain point of time in history. Yet both received the same vision from God? One might add that those visions came about long ago, yet I beg to differ. Till this century, we have been receiving the word of God through apparitions. The most recent of which happened in 1917 at Our Lady of Fatima in Protugal where 3 children received the visions of the Blessed Virgin Marry. Does one imply that those 3 children were telling lies when they have yet to learn how to write nor read? The word by Our Lady was written down by the orders of the Pope and kept within the walls of the Vatican until the events happened. They were the 3 secrets of Fatima. All of which have been released by the Vatican over the years. This is just one example of the many which the Catholic faith has experienced.

Applying Default logic into the justifications I have just written, I conclude that God does exist, but concluding is just a statement that the whole argument is reliant on. Another more important entity is the have belief. Saint Augustine of Hippo once said “In order to understand, one must first belief” and if one does not have belief, one can never be certain.

Life.

The soul many belief, it the self-aware essence of one’s self and the impartment of wisdom and knowledge. In dualism, the body is of one physical entity, and the soul is another. The body gives us the ability to move and do physical actions, the soul is the process of which it instructs the body and the ability to reason. However, these 2 entities do not explain how one is given life. Would it be logical to impart that the Body is of physical being, and the soul it’s mindful thoughts, the spirit inherits us to give life? By essences of speaking, to operate like a normal human being, one has to have the body and mind working in coherent order, but what connects the body and the mind to give life. Can it not be said that the sprite connects them. And at death, life changes and the soul departs to Heaven because the spirit has left us. I admit that what I have said is of a theological context but it is also with this expatiation that I conclude, one must belief in a God in order to belief they have a soul.

The Law of Opposites

The Law of Opposites states that for every force, there must be an equal but opposite. This goes to say that, what has a beginning must have an end which also means, not a word can be spoken confirming or denying the Law of Opposites without it being in evidence; the Law allows opposition, Lawlessness, though it can only seem superficially to be defied. It is inherent in the very process of communication, in speech and hearing.
It is a law of reflections: what is real, what is not real; what is significant, what is not significant. It is the means of making manifest the unmanifest, but only shows a reflection of the Real. Hence the Law of Opposites is not Truth, but can be considered a lesser truth, a relative truth.

Mans laws.

Mans laws are rules created by man, whom are the least to say are imperfect beings, for the community to follow. Whoever shell go against these laws and break them will be punished. We can agree that, should one break a law, he or she has done a bad deed. Hence if we applied the Laws of opposition unto the laws of man, we can clearly say that whoever abids by those laws are considered good yet what a certain community sees as a Good might differ from another. This is where Natural Moral Law comes into place where Artstotle states that the law in each place might not be the same, however what is by “Natural Law” should be the same everywhere.

10 commandments

On the top of Mount Sinai, the lord God inscribed 2 stone tablets and gave them to Moses. For those whom go against these commandments would be judged by God, and for those who follow, shell be doing a Holy deed unto God. The very same commandments were manifested into human laws of today. This goes to say, Divine law (The 10 commandments) is independent from the will of man. Man cannot change the laws, but add on to them, making them into Human laws. Divine Laws can also be said as the manifestation of Natural Moral Laws, whereby a set of moral laws are installed within us that can never be changed nor altered. The view of divine law and natural moral law should not be one of going against but rather a manifestation.

In a recent philosophy class, I posed a question, “Did you know why the laws of Moses was created?” the response I received was, “Too keep man in check and obey.” Ask this same question to anyone else, and most likely you will receive the same answer. If you were to do a quick check on the laws of today’s society, you would realize that Man has used the laws of Moses as bases of their laws. And with this, we can also say that man does need divine intervention to help keep society in check.

Physical good Vs Physical bad.

A physical good and a physical bad is not a judgment to cast upon by man, nor by god, but rather a shape of how things are formed, which concludes with a final synthesis. Understand that, if a man kills another man to rob him of his money, under man’s laws, it is bad. However, we can also say it is a physical good that the man has part-taken in the killing, simply because, if the man was not there at all, the killing would have never taken place and thus a judgment of the bad would never have occurred. Alas we can also say that for everything bad, there must be a good within, or the bad would never have happened.

Evil.

One might say that since God is the creator of everything, he therefore creates Evil. However, might I add that, in creating Man, God gave us the free-will to do whatever we please. The 10 commandments were a judgment slate for us to follow but it is by no means a compulsory measure for us to part-take in, for we were given free-will. Our free-will leads us to go against God, and in doing so, Evil is created. A by product of our actions. And free-will would be the actions we chose to do within our limits.

The Definition.

From what was said, there are 3 forms of negative actions which Man can part-take in. The form of a Bad which is judged by society, the Physical Bad which explains the synthesis of action and the product of Evil, which is going against God’s Divine Laws. Using the Laws of Opposition, we can also say that those who do not go against these Laws, are therefore doing a positive action. However, doing a Good in the eyes of Human Law might not be considered a Holy deed in the judgment of God. Take for example, if I kill a man in self-defense, the Law of Man judges that I have not done anything wrong, therefore I am in the Good in the eyes of society. However, by judgment of God, I have gone against his Divine Law, and therefore I did an unholy (sinful) act. From the instance of the Bible, the Old Testament describes of how God send the plague to Egypt to kill each first born son of those who did not believe in God. Can we not say that God has done a Bad in the eyes of Human Law?
It is agreed without doubt that whatever God does is Holy. However we can doubt if the actions he has done is considered Good and from this example of the plague in Egypt, we can say that God is absolutely Holy but not absolutely Good. But keep in mind we are interfering between the Laws of Man and of Divinity.

What is Holy?

I hope the reader understands that what is holy need not be good. And from that instance, we can say that whatever is holy is what God does. The creation of the world, the creation of man, and the actions he has done. It’s essence is to be in union with God. And what of man is to be considered Holy? Messengers from God clearly shows us a way to live our life, by abiding to the 10 commandments, we are not only following his teachings, but we are also worshipping him. There are many ways to worship God. It would be narrow-minded to devalue the ways that are not strictly liturgical, like gazing at a sunset on the beach and marveling in one's heart at the beauty of the Creator's work. This, too, is an act of praising God. But liturgy could rightly be called the heart of worship in the sense in which the heart of an animal is the animal's biological center, circulating blood to the rest of the body.

long time since i blogged , somone actually reminded me about my blog . lol , anyways , its been 2 weeks and 1 day since i'v been to school . or actually studied . =) fark tp man , im starting on my multimedia course next month so hope everything goes well . as for canoe polo , ah well , just go for trainings la ... tml got land training ... #%$!^# . go watch tv liao ... =P

missed school for afew days now . been having fever since yesterday . my temp was around 38.5 then it went down to 37.4 then it went back up again just recently to 38.5 , craps , getting sick with symtoms of sars is the wrost thing i can deal with now . however , i only have fever and a slight sore throte , i hope what the Doc said was right , i got a viral infection so i dont need antibiotics for now . still could remember the time i was to CGH cause i was having sky high fever , it was like for the whole week i think , and finally when we went there , the Doc did a blood test for denge fever , which came back negative , so he concluded it was a viral infection , and ture enough the next day my fever went away ...
oh great ... sick =(

i made myself one single goal ... to pass my upcoming exams. if possible , pass 3 out of 4 . before i leave this course to seek new life somewhere else. i'v got afew choices , sae , nafa or sp . either ones good for me . right now i think i should start getting down to studying. topic by topic subject by subject . ask if i dunknw . yeah , its the only way . go home and start slogging ! oh well , i should start tml with whatever subject is taught in school .