lovely diacritic?

Searching for True Love
27 October, 2009, 10:02 pm
Filed under: Relationship, Religion | Tags: , ,

My MC prof showed this in class today to give us a good example of good public speaking. But clearly there was a deeper message behind, especially for us students in the stage of searching for a life partner.

Anyway, just a fun fact. Did you know that the term “BGR” is only used by Singaporeans? My Prof told us that and the Singaporeans couldn’t believe it! The international students in class were like, what’s BGR? Business Government Relationship? (Since there is a module in my school called BGS – Business, Government and Society)

Back to the deep message about true love that I was talking about, I encourage all of you to watch all five parts of the video. It’s really wise and I am convicted that this IS true love.

God bless you. ūüôā


Is actually quite simple
8 October, 2008, 12:34 am
Filed under: Cooking, Food | Tags: , ,

Sick of eating boring take-aways that are filled with excessive oil and salt? Why not cook up a meal by yourself? You do not have to worry if it will turn out bad because no one else will bear the cost of such undesirable taste except for yourself. Also, you could try ANY method without any nagging from more experienced people. So much freer and flexible.


I successfully did so yesterday afternoon. (It turned out great except I think the beef was alittle hard due to overcooking.) It was a simple 45 minutes job. Furthermore, it¬†was a relaxation from my intensive mugging. All the ingredients I needed were just basic ones which can be found in the supermarket. – Beef, pasta, onions, oyster sauce. That’s all! Whatever extras you can add them yourself. As I said, no one will nag at you.


As what I’ve always wished for, to cut onions into circular shapes! The experienced one, my mum, always discourage me from doing so. Since she was not going to eat it, why not?


Lovely isn’t it?


The penne I used


The bigger rings went it first as they needed more time to cook. Had a weird analogy that fat NS boys get enlisted first too.


Next that went in were the rest of the onions followed by the beef and oyster sauce РIs it not simple?

(I think the beef looks overcooked here already. Apologise for this being my first attempt)


The only downside of this whole cooking thing РWashing up


Yay! It turned out great! ūüôā It is like a mix of Chinese and Italian dish. Sounds srange but I love it.

(Something random, but that is the cup of coke light I drank while cooking. Felt like Jamie Oliver, who drinks wine while cooking.)


Why not you try it yourself? ūüôā

Seven Deadly Sins: Pride
29 September, 2008, 12:27 am
Filed under: Religion | Tags: ,


What constitutes a “proud” person? The negative sense points to a sinful individual who shifts ultimate confidence from God to self. In the Wisdom literature, “the proud” are distinct from “the righteous” and “the humble.”

Proverbs 16:18 

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Pride often cause us to refuse the right way in order to prevent embarassment and people’s¬†disappointment in us from happening. For example, a simple “I’m sorry” will be difficult for a prideful person to mouth. If he says so, embarassment will flood in and his “entourage” who looks up to his “authority” will be disappointed in his apologetic¬†action. However, this action of his towards the one who got offended will release emotional and spiritual burdens upon the both of them. Something that is weighing both parties’ relationship¬†down¬†will miraculously¬†break when the pride element is removed. If such honest yet difficult act is not carried out, the consequences will be far more bigger than the effects of embarassment. So think twice before you make the wrong move towards pride.

Reference: Pride

Seven Deadly Sins: Greed
24 September, 2008, 11:32 pm
Filed under: Animals, Philosophy | Tags: ,


I recall this fable I read when I was a kid. It was about a dog and a piece of meat.

One sunny day, a dog was fortunate enough to find a large and juicy piece of meat. Happily going his way with the meat in his mouth, the dog reached the side of a stream. Seeing his reflection in the water, the dog believed the image to be that of another dog also holding a piece of meat. Wishing to own the other dog’s meat, he opened his mouth and barked loudly. But just as his jaws came apart, the meat slipped away and fell into the swift waters of the stream.


I guess in certain pursuits in life, always remember to STOP and CHECK if the purpose of the pursuit is wise. If not you never know what consequences might come your way.


Reference: The Dog and the Piece of Meat

To Live FOR Christ
14 September, 2008, 11:33 pm
Filed under: Religion | Tags: ,

A post inspired by Jeanette’s sharing.


What does it mean to live for Christ? As a student, I¬†am trying not to compress God into my little world of academics. As though¬†everything is all about me. Blessing my studies and what not.¬†Instead, I am trying to bring my studies to Him.¬†To aim¬†to glorify Him¬†and not¬†myself through my studies and through my character as a student. Picture this as God being represented by the Sun and myself as the Earth. Living on the Earth, the Sun rises from the east and sets in the west. The natural inference will be that, the Sun rotates around the Earth. However we all know that this is not the case. Likewise, God does not revolve around us. God should be the centre of our focus. Imagine if the Earth decides to refuse rotating around the Sun. Whose loss is it? The Sun? Not at all. It is still shining as brightly, independent of all other changes. It is the Earth’s loss. Certain parts of the Earth will remain in darkness. This is what happens when we refuse to put God as the centre of our focus.

The Dark Knight
3 September, 2008, 12:46 am
Filed under: Entertainment, Film, Religion | Tags: , , ,


This show really sets one thinking about the root of human behaviour and reaction to situations. Batman wondered why Joker could not stop creating chaos in the city. Alfred answered that the root of his behaviour was simply his interest in dynamite and explosion. In¬†another¬†scene of the three ships having to make a life-and-death decision, whether to blow up the other boats in order to survive by being the last one standing, creates a suspense¬†which is similar¬†to watching “Saw”. This scene sets you thinking about the final decision¬†each boat would make and why did they not choose the other.


Another thing on my mind surfaced from¬†Harvey’s transition to Two-Face. Initially Harvey was a¬†respectable man in the city. Picture this as a man being a strong believer of Christ. But when situation happens (like the death of Rachel, woman of Harvey’s life), the devil will wait for the right opportunity to pounce upon that wound and bring you down. (Joker got Harvey’s support¬†for the destructive doings¬†by emphasing on the unjust death of his girlfriend. This changed his way of thinking and his actions.) Subsequently, actions committed may seem logical to the person but in biblical perspective, it is actually wrong. (Similarly, Harvey’s mind was badly¬†influenced by the Joker¬†that revenge was the most logical thing for him to do to counter the problem. Obviously from a third party perspective, revenge is not the best solution to handle death, in fact, it worsens the situation.) If only the situation was handled with the right biblical measures, the problem will surely be overcome. (If only Harvey did not give in to Joker’s persuasions, he would not have taken the path of revenge¬†that eventually cost him his life.)

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 ‚Äúeternity.‚ÄĚ 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‚ÄĒby faith‚ÄĒeven though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort

Reference: Who created God?