Philosophy

Paul the Octopus has recently become very famous after his predictions for Germany and Spain during the World Cup 2010 came right. The 100% accuracy tag distinguishes him from any other diviner who had attempted a prediction during the World Cup. There were responses and reactions from various people including sportsmen, statesmen, and mathematicians. Whatever, the use of Paul has demonstrated once again that mankind's search for an extra-temporal, psychic foresight has not quelled through the historical calendar returning a decade over this millennium. The question before us is can such predictions as those of Paul be counted on as reliable (in other words, can they be seriously taken as true)? The mathematicians have plumped for chance. It's all a matter of probability, they say ( BBC News ). However, the argument of chance in itself is weak. The mathematics of chance will calculate that the probability of Paul being right seven times out of seven is 1/128. But, the conclusi

In an age when "belief" is looked skeptically down, one wonders why people still continue to believe in God. At the same time, there are those who wonder why people aren't able to believe in God. Following may be some reasons why people believe in God: 1. Simplicity.  There is a law in both philosophy and science called Occam's Razor that says that the simplest explanation must be preferred to a more complicated one. Belief in God is simple, therefore, people believe in God. 2. Rationality.  Belief in God answers several questions that may not be, otherwise, answerable. It solves the question of creation and destiny of the universe, the question of justice, morality, and truth, the problem of evil, the question of life after death, and the problem of man's purpose in life. 3. Practicability . Belief in God is practical and useful. It helps one to face life in a positive manner. At the same time, the believer's experience of God's answer to his prayers, of

PROBLEM: The so-called paradox of the stone asks: "Could God (Who is omnipotent) create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?" If so, then He cannot be omnipotent; if not, then He is not omnipotent. ANSWER: The comparative "heavier" doesn't apply to infinity; therefore, the question is contradictory and, consequently, meaningless. 1. Infinity is that which is without a beginning, a middle, and an end. Therefore, internal comparisons don't apply to it. 2. Only a greater infinite can supercede an infinite; but, "a greater infinite" is a meaningless category, since infinite is the maximal superlative. Domenic Marbaniang, July 2010