lovely diacritic?

Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend
30 August, 2008, 7:02 pm
Filed under: Entertainment, Music | Tags:

It is interesting to see how a piece of act can evolve over the years but the essence of the work still remains. I like the way Minogue manages to capture the style of Broadway and still preserve the style that is unique to her.


Marilyn Monroe


Kylie Minogue


Who Created God?
29 August, 2008, 9:09 pm
Filed under: Religion, Science | Tags:

Found this powerful explanation from a site.


A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

  1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
  2. The universe has a beginning.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

 Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

  • 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
  • 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

 Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.


  • The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
  • It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
  • The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
  • God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.


There are only two ways to refute an argument:

  1. Show that it is logically invalid
  2. Show that at least one of the premises is false.

 Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

 Are the premises true?

1. Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy.

This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open.

According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.

Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky. Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universes expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe. It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch.

Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.

As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.

Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.

2. Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.


Is creation by God rational?

 A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A final thought

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God’s eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort

Reference: Who created God?

Only By Grace
29 August, 2008, 12:24 am
Filed under: Education, Health, Religion | Tags: ,

Have you ever been caught in a situation where you have a major exam coming up and yet you are down with a bug that strips you off the concentration to study, the ability to retain what you have studied and the confidence to do well for your exam?


I have, and it was just this week. Having my last two papers in a day plus a fever and a killing diarrhoea kind of sensation, I really had NO choice but to sink into my bed and allow the thoughts of doing badly for the papers to haunt me. Furthermore, my classmates only had ONE paper left, which means that they had spent more time preparing for it. Thus, their grades will surely far exceed mine. BUT, in that kind of situation I chose to turn to God. Having no physical health to carry on and feel like I am done for, I took His hands and trusted in Him to pull me through the papers. On top of that, I am thankful for the friends around me who prayed for me too.


During that similar paper, I was still experiencing pain and that caused me to fumble in my thinking processes and concentration span. It was really a hindrance to me. The next day, (how advanced technology is to mark the papers so quickly.) I got back the script and boy! I was the top of my class for that subject.  (Do not have the idea that I am always the top) And that paper was really a miracle for the marks I got was almost twice of my classmates.  See how amazing God works?


Furthermore, a miracle happened for my second paper too. It was Music Paper. The same night that I was all sick on my bed, I still listened to the tracks on my MP3 player to do the least I could to be mentally prepared. Out of three topics I could listen on, I chose one and out of all the tracks in that topic, a particular one, which usually never stood out to me, appealed to me just that night. I just kept listening over and over again. Little did I know it was the track that was tested for the paper! How wonderful is that! I believe that this is beyond coincidence and it is surely by God’s grace to pull me through both papers despite my sickness that night.  


When the situation seems like there is no way out, He never fails to take control of the problem and just lead you through it. I am glad that through my situation, God’s power is unveiled and that is why I want to share it with you to testify that God is greater than all the problems that you think is already humongous.

Samsung OMNIA
16 August, 2008, 11:19 pm
Filed under: Technology | Tags: ,


To me, OMNIA causes insOMNIA. It is compressed with so many functions and even how tired a person may be, he or she will still insist on using it and thus, causing insOMNIA. I surely do not mind experiencing so because this is an ingenious gadget! It is like a complete package of the ideal piece of technology I wished for! It is SLEEK, has FIVE megapixel, it is fully BLACK (there is the white one too! just two colours and I am spoilt for choice because I usually go for these either colours when choosing a phone) It has access to the Internet! Functions that allow you to read word documents plus her other members (i.e. Microsoft Office – makes life SUPER convenient right.) Memory space is what? EIGHT… OR… SIXTEEN GIGABYTE. NOT mega, it is GIGA. That is exactly a thousand times bigger than my current phone? OH, and it is fully TOUCH SCREEN. (Another function that I am looking for in a phone) You can check out the video below if you still cannot identify with my excitement and are just polluted with skepticism.



Is it not more than just a phone?

Double Neck Classical Guitar
14 August, 2008, 9:36 pm
Filed under: Music | Tags:


Discovered this below the MSN advertisement box WHILE studying!

To Know It Is His Plans
11 August, 2008, 12:20 am
Filed under: Religion | Tags:

Genesis 50:15-21

“15 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 ‘This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept.

 18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.

 19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.”


We all know the story of Joseph, going through all that bad treatment he had from his brothers. For a person without God, he can easily hold on to that grudge for life, choose not to forgive his offenders and live in bitterness. But Joseph had God in him. He could recognise that the treatment he got was part of God’s greater plan. He could easily compare himself with other households where the youngest child was well liked and pampered by the older siblings. But he chose not to and believed strongly that all these were for a greater purpose.


This is something that I/we, should learn from Joseph:

  1. He did not turn to self pity to think that everyone in the world owes him something so as to make up for the unrighteous treatment he had as a youth.
  2. He was not unforgiving after such betrayal from his closed ones.
  3. He was not self absorbed to glare at God for the bad past and think that God should only make him happy.