If there is at least one area in the universe where this god isn't present, that would mean that he isn't omnipresent. Since the believers state that their god isn't in hell, that debunks everything because, if this god is indeed omnipresent, he should be present in hell as well.
This is indeed a paradox similar to "the rock that god can't carry". Hell is defined as the absence of this god. The believers made a flaw in their concept of omnipresence by just defining this "Hell".
Say this god is also present in hell. Since this god graces everyone in his presence, hell would be meaningless. There would be no punishment since his presence would nullify whatever punishment there is. Sinners are free to sin. This god's in hell with all of us anyway.
If this god "loves" everyone, why did he create hell in the first place? Why is there even a concept of hell, a concept of punishment, a concept of sin? If he loves everyone and wants to free everyone he loves from the clutches of sin, he would have done so even before he created mankind.
He wouldn't have created that tree of wisdom.
One might say that since he loves us, he has given us the gift of free will, the burden of decision. Despite the choices we make, we should all experience "heaven" in the end. Then again, having to send other people to hell while keeping a few in heaven is a form of discrimination. Is discrimination a form of love? No one with a right mind would think so.
In one way or another, the concept of hell will be pointless. Hell is merely a fictitious "place" that adults use to scare their children with, passed down from generation to generation.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What is a soul? Really...
"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body" - C.S. Lewis
Let's assume that the above statement is pure fact. When we die, we, as souls, supposedly leave our bodies. Let's also assume this as fact. Our bodies possess five basic senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. There are other senses but let's just stick with these five that we are most familiar with.
Since we discard our bodies upon death (or upon astral projection or something like that), it is only logical that we also lose input from our five senses. Moreover, we also lose our ability to think, since our brains are part of our body. So if we leave our bodies, what would we feel? Or better yet, what would we sense? Or even better yet, what would we be thinking?
We only gain an interface in the material world as long as we are connected to our bodies. If we lose our bodies, it would be like a computer without any peripherals. No monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, RAM cards, processors, etc. So basically, we're just left with just the motherboard. How on earth can you operate a computer like that?
This concept conflicts with the idea of reincarnation wherein memories are passed on with the soul from one body to another. Memories are stored in the brain, and the brain dies and decays with the rest of the body.
I think that the bare soul alone is conscious somehow. It is a mere consciousness that can't see or feel or even think. It just exists and is conscious; it's some sort of strange energy.
Some stories (including the bible) and especially some emo sayings state that a soul can be inflicted with pain and suffering. If that is the case, how exactly? I guess it would be a pain in the... uhh... consciousness?
Let's assume that the above statement is pure fact. When we die, we, as souls, supposedly leave our bodies. Let's also assume this as fact. Our bodies possess five basic senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. There are other senses but let's just stick with these five that we are most familiar with.
Since we discard our bodies upon death (or upon astral projection or something like that), it is only logical that we also lose input from our five senses. Moreover, we also lose our ability to think, since our brains are part of our body. So if we leave our bodies, what would we feel? Or better yet, what would we sense? Or even better yet, what would we be thinking?
We only gain an interface in the material world as long as we are connected to our bodies. If we lose our bodies, it would be like a computer without any peripherals. No monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, RAM cards, processors, etc. So basically, we're just left with just the motherboard. How on earth can you operate a computer like that?
This concept conflicts with the idea of reincarnation wherein memories are passed on with the soul from one body to another. Memories are stored in the brain, and the brain dies and decays with the rest of the body.
I think that the bare soul alone is conscious somehow. It is a mere consciousness that can't see or feel or even think. It just exists and is conscious; it's some sort of strange energy.
Some stories (including the bible) and especially some emo sayings state that a soul can be inflicted with pain and suffering. If that is the case, how exactly? I guess it would be a pain in the... uhh... consciousness?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Eternal Life = Overrated
Long ago, humans don't actually fear death itself; they fear being forgotten. The civilizations of old believed that they can put a stopper on death. Ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese, Native Americans, Hindu mythology, and even Christianity had all been urged to live for but one cause: eternal life or life after death.
Uncertainty has always been a problem, especially for the ancient people who had made up stuff to stop people from panicking. The people, knowing nothing else to believe in, took everything as truth: hook, line, and sinker. They believed in salvation after death. Regardless of the conditions, they all aim for this.
Thinking about it, what would be in store for humans if ever they achieve immortality? Nothing really. They'd just live longer. After that? You'd be so sick of life that you would beg for death.
Imagine playing a game that you know you can't lose. It would be fun at first but after exhausting all possible areas, it would be repetitive, not just once or twice, but a million times over. Moreover, you would have a serious case of procrastination due to the assurance that you would be able to do it before you die - because you can't die.
Surely, you can do the things you couldn't have done if you're capable of dying: do extensive research, master several martial arts, rule the world. But once you're immortal, nothing will drive you to do these things. Your basic survival instincts would've already shattered. You wouldn't need to eat, sleep, work... You wouldn't feel the need to do pretty much anything, even for loved ones.
Let's face it. Immortality is but a mere fantasy. Everything is transient. We all live because we all will have to die someday. If we are to aim for something as we live, isn't it always better to live for the sake of living?
To live is to die. If you won't die, you're pretty much like an inanimate object.
Uncertainty has always been a problem, especially for the ancient people who had made up stuff to stop people from panicking. The people, knowing nothing else to believe in, took everything as truth: hook, line, and sinker. They believed in salvation after death. Regardless of the conditions, they all aim for this.
Thinking about it, what would be in store for humans if ever they achieve immortality? Nothing really. They'd just live longer. After that? You'd be so sick of life that you would beg for death.
Imagine playing a game that you know you can't lose. It would be fun at first but after exhausting all possible areas, it would be repetitive, not just once or twice, but a million times over. Moreover, you would have a serious case of procrastination due to the assurance that you would be able to do it before you die - because you can't die.
Surely, you can do the things you couldn't have done if you're capable of dying: do extensive research, master several martial arts, rule the world. But once you're immortal, nothing will drive you to do these things. Your basic survival instincts would've already shattered. You wouldn't need to eat, sleep, work... You wouldn't feel the need to do pretty much anything, even for loved ones.
Let's face it. Immortality is but a mere fantasy. Everything is transient. We all live because we all will have to die someday. If we are to aim for something as we live, isn't it always better to live for the sake of living?
To live is to die. If you won't die, you're pretty much like an inanimate object.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Self-fulfilling Instinct
By instinct, humans have acted upon selfishness. Man lives to feed himself, satisfy himself, fulfill himself, pleasure himself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every action made would still lead to the fulfillment of oneself.
A person prays to his god for the the betterment of his family, blessings for his children, peace for his world. Even if he wishes for the welfare for people completely unrelated to him, it will still give him a sense of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. There is no denying that.
But selfishness where the only beneficiary is the self is considered evil by human morals. Not wanting to share, ignoring beggars, greed, lust, gluttony... Why? Selfishness just took on a different form.
There is no such thing as absolute selflessness. You desire to do something for others. Selfless selfishness? Selfish selflessness? Humans are built with the instinct to pursue his own happiness. It just so happens that for some people, happiness comes from helping others.
Declaring people that pursue their own happiness without affecting others evil... That concept just tips the scales. The majority had instilled into themselves the idea that nobody has the right to become selfish.
Humans live for themselves. Humans are individuals. Humans are not born to follow a general consensus - they're born to pursue happiness, regardless of whether their pursuit adheres to the consensus or not.
Selfishness isn't evil. It's just human instinct.
A person prays to his god for the the betterment of his family, blessings for his children, peace for his world. Even if he wishes for the welfare for people completely unrelated to him, it will still give him a sense of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. There is no denying that.
But selfishness where the only beneficiary is the self is considered evil by human morals. Not wanting to share, ignoring beggars, greed, lust, gluttony... Why? Selfishness just took on a different form.
There is no such thing as absolute selflessness. You desire to do something for others. Selfless selfishness? Selfish selflessness? Humans are built with the instinct to pursue his own happiness. It just so happens that for some people, happiness comes from helping others.
Declaring people that pursue their own happiness without affecting others evil... That concept just tips the scales. The majority had instilled into themselves the idea that nobody has the right to become selfish.
Humans live for themselves. Humans are individuals. Humans are not born to follow a general consensus - they're born to pursue happiness, regardless of whether their pursuit adheres to the consensus or not.
Selfishness isn't evil. It's just human instinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
