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?

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.

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.

Sadistic Ventriloquist

If this god is omniscient, then there is no "free will", assuming that he also created the universe. Since this god is omniscient or all-knowing, he must have already known what will happen. Since he created the universe, everything in this world is scripted by him. There is no free will, only an illusion of it.

If there was no free will, there would be no point in having us do these "tests" since he already knows the result. Moreover, if a follower decides to defect from his faith because of the gravity of these tests, it would be this god's fault for doing so. Therefore, this god is a sadistic ventriloquist and we are the puppets following his every whim.

The concept of heaven and hell would also be a farce. Since there would be only one outcome (the outcome that this god knows), the people would surely enter their destined realm. The concept of repentance and redemption would be all for naught, another reason to call him a sadistic ventriloquist.

If he already knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and wouldn't want his creation to fall into sin, he would not have created that cursed tree in the first place. But since he supposedly did, then it is either he didn't know the outcome or mankind was meant to sin.

Believers believe that every obstacle in life is a "test" from him. As we all know, we test something in order to know the outcome of certain events. College entrance tests, medical examinations, crash tests, taste tests... All these are needed since we can't see into the future in order to determine whether you're eligible to get into college, whether you need special treatment, whether the car needs better airbags, or whether the soup tastes salty. If this god is omniscient - and by extension, knows all future events, why would he need to test our faith?

On the other hand, if free will did exist, the concept of omniscience would not suffice, since all would be subject to uncertainty. Since he is not omniscient, he wouldn't satisfy the definition that Christians have made.

It's either there is a god and he is a sadistic ventriloquist, or there is no god at all and everything just happens at random.

I'd go for the latter. The thought of a sadistic ventriloquist is just scary...

Neither Omnipotent nor Benevolent

"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?" - Epicurus

If this god is both willing and able to defeat evil, then why is evil still present?

A friend of mine tried to retort this claim by saying "god needs time to combat evil". Okay... But that would lead to god being not so powerful. Power requires workforce and time as expressed by the equation Power = Work / Time. Therefore, assuming that this god is omnipotent (power being of an infinite level), the divisor of the equation, time, must either be zero (meaning this god doesn't even need to snap his fingers in order for evil to disappear) or the dividend of the equation, work, must be infinite. His mere existence will make evil disappear. Having any value for time other than zero would give the quotient a definite amount, which contradicts the concept of omnipotence.

As for having the work variable set to infinite, it will also nullify the time time divisor since time will be meaningless for something of infinite capability. It will still lead to the same question.

Saying that this god needs time to combat evil is saying that this god is not strong enough to do so. Therefore, if this god really is omnipotent like the believers say, he's just not willing to combat evil (according to Epicurus' quote).

It just boils down to a choice: either this god propagates both good and evil or he is against evil and just not powerful enough to totally suppress it. If the only requirement to totally eliminate evil is for humans to turn back to god, he is indeed powerless, not being able to handle it on his own.

Considering the concept of Yin and Yang, good cannot overcome evil and vice versa. That leads us to the possibility that god and Satan might be two opposite faces of the same card, creating a definite balance that holds the universe in place. This equilibrium, in turn, creates a paradox in the Christian belief.

This god could now be "all powerful", but his own negative power negates his positive power. Now, it's either god has Dissociative Identity Disorder or Christians just misinterpreted everything from the beginning. Whatever the choice is, their god wouldn't really fit the ideals that they might think.

Brain ache? I'll sum it up: This god doesn't equate to omnipotence. This god doesn't equate to benevolence. This god isn't god - the reason why all throughout this entry, the word "god" with the capital G never occurred.

"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" - Epicurus

Wings of Wax

For millennia, humans have envied other animals that can fly, birds to be more precise. Wings have fascinated humans everywhere. In popular Greek Mythology, we learn of the story of an inventor named Daedalus who made wings to escape into the sky with his son Icarus. In history, we learn of the daring exploits of the Wright brothers and their attempts to make an airplane. Ancient South American civilizations even worship a winged serpent named Quetzalcoatl. Flight has been a dream of the human race since the beginning.

Like most ambitions, once one is fulfilled, another begins. When man gained the ability to fly, they wanted to soar higher - so they did. They reached great heights people from a thousand years ago never thought of. The adage "The sky is the limit" seems obsolete today because mankind had reached beyond the known limit. Every finish line is the starting line of yet another race.

As humans continue to soar, they express desire for more. They draw pictures of humans with bird-like wings, angels as they are called. Somewhat beheld like perfect, angels have spread in culture, set like some unreachable goal. As with all humans, they live in pursuit of their goal, not the goal itself. Envisioning oneself as a human capable of flight is indeed an uplifting habit a typical person does. Dreams of flight seem to be the anti-thesis of a nightmare.

But with all flight, one needs to land. One cannot fly across the skies forever. That is the only thing about flight most humans fear: landing. It's either you land or you crash down. The sinking feeling during flight in a dream can spell a nightmare. In the story of Daedalus, Icarus strayed too far from his father and went to the sun like a moth to the flame. In the end, the sun destroyed Icarus' wings, causing his death. But landing doesn't seem to exist in a human's point of view, since human flight had defeated the purpose of the finish line.

Soaring until we die - it seems like a miserable fate for us humans to have. It would be better to keep our feet on the ground, literally and figuratively. If ever we feel the need to fly, fly where you know you can land safely.

... Or crash on the ground headfirst.

What is Luck?

What is Luck?

1. the seemingly chance happening of events that affect someone; fortune; fate
2. good fortune; success, prosperity, advantage, etc.
3. an object believed to bring good luck

Really now... What is Luck?

Say there's a bus accident and out of the thirty passengers on the bus, only one survived. Many would say he's lucky since he survived while the others died, but is he really lucky? If he's really lucky, the tragedy wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Say you're a poor kid living in the slums of some rundown city. By some random chance, you happen to meet a rich kid who tells you about himself. He tells you about how his parents gave him good food, clothes, and education yet lack quality family time. You compare it with your own life and realize that you're lucky to have a loving family despite the hardship. But if you're really lucky, you wouldn't be in the slums in the first place.

Say you're the child of someone who has a weak heart. Your father dies in his sleep, rather than suffering in agony. You consider him lucky that he escaped suffering. But if he's really lucky, he wouldn't have had a weak heart in the first place.

The word "luck" seems to be forced into seemingly good situations that are surrounded by a large chance of a bad. But that isn't good fortune at all. Such absurdity...

Luck doesn't seem to work that way so let's redefine it. "Luck is success, prosperity, advantage, etc. in a specified set." "Luck is partial immunity (to some degree) of strife."

Say you're a perfectly normal human in the planet. Everyday, every hour, every minute, and every second, out of the billions of humans in the world, a handful dies, a bunch is stricken with disease, a handful are drowning in poverty, and almost everyone has experienced misfortune... save for yourself. That's the only instance where you should be the luckiest person in the world.

Everyone's lucky... in a way.