Freak..

I'm really scared... Everyone seems to be talking abt FYP when its still next year.. Seems like alot of things to do. Worse of all I do not have a hall.. Shit.. I want hall 16 bAdLy... Its almost impossible to study at home cos once I start school I will mug.. And I mean serious mugging. No TV during weekdays. Weekends go library. Now got FYP?!? haiz... I want IA to get A!!! But I have no time. Every weekends also go out. I really must restraint myself and start to think about how I am going to complete this project. Also start doing my report and produce a better logbook cos my tutor and sup seems quite picky... OH NO!!!! So after today outing, tmr movie, next sat outing to Compass ross + next sat mahjong outing. I AM GoINg To MUG! Plus reach office at 8 am so can complete project on time.. Cos once I was in office till 6.30, (Office hours till 5.45 ) they were already asking me why I am still in the office.. Actually I was meeting someone at 7. Hence can you imagine what if I was really doing my project till late hours in the office.. So a better strategy is to reach early since no people will be around..

Clever people= Less need for friendship?!?

Its supposed to be my J1 class gathering today.. But it seems like they rarely have a sucessful gathering.. So far this is the 4th one, but the turnup rate is quite bad.. Esp the gals side. And tonight, the class gathering will become a guys gathering from class gathering.. I would have gone if only more gals attend. If I did not go, its not that bad as I am only with the class for 1 year. Then I drop Bio to take Chem, Phy, Maths. But What abt the rest? Dun they feel like seeing each other, catching up with one another? Or are they really that busy that they cannot even take out some time? I dunno.. But I pity the one who organise the outing so relentlessly. I feel guilty not going. Its also nice to catch up with friends.. but.. Hmm.. maybe our friendship are just superfacial ones since we are all to busy studying in J1. Sad..

Philosophy

I like this. Its writen by ABDUL KAREEM B YUSOPE a student from NTU. Brilliant.
But no, I'm not an aethist.

The classic arguements for religious revelations have always centred on three main branches of Epistemology, namely the Cosmological arguement for God, the Teleological argumentation and finally the Ontological Arguementation for the existential nature of God.

Today, all three major arguements have been refuted quite decisively by contemporary philosophers.

The Cosmological arguement seeks to establish that in order to better understand our place in this Universe, we may begin by asking the classic question: "Where did we come from?" One would deliberate that we came from our parents who in turn came from our grandparents and the list goes on in an infinite regress. Upon reaching 10, 9, 8,....2,..etc, we relent that the Initiator Himself must be the entity, we call God. For the Gospel says, "In the Beginning, there was the Word" or that which the Qur'an claims: "We created you from nothing. Be! And so it shall!"

Now, the proponents for these arguements would admit they employed a mathematical infinite regress. Since the tool is dynamic, one should not conveniently conclude at 0, for the tool requires one to move further to -1, -2 and so forth. Not only is this arguement fallacious, it fails to proof the premise that it seeks to affirm, that is Man ensue from God. Nonetheless, this arguement is still taught in Theology Schools today.

The second classic arguement to proof that God exists is the arguement from Design. This is a hotly debated arguement since the last century. It seeks to establish that there must indeed be a Creator that would amazingly create creatures of immense diversity, and with such acute precision. However, this arguement aims to show that there is a Creator. Again, the conclusion does not support the premise in that it may suggest a potential Designer but not necessarily a Creator. Creationism is not proven although this was the aim in mind. The reason is that one cannot conveniently conclude that a Designer translates to a Creator. This can be clearly seen in the case of how our new Biological Science campus was built. The School of Biological Science was built by Bangladeshis and Chinese workers but it was designed by Singaporean architects. Here, the Designer is not necessarily the same Creator. Hence this arguement also fails.

The last arguement for the existence of God is the Ontological arguement. This is arguement from existence. We imagine in our minds that there is indeed a Creator. However, none of us have seen God Himself. A man may have in his mind the idea of $300 in his pocket. But whether this cash actually exist in his pocket is a different matter altogether. There exists an unbridgeable gulf between what is in the mind and what is in objective reality. Here, God is but a concept.

All these arguements have been refuted albeit theological institutions are still propounding such propositions.

Today, religion is in need of a higher order of thought to justify its premises.


Freedom is an illusion. Life is too short to be wasted.