Can God create a rock he cannot lift?

Can God create a rock he cannot lift?
(Chinese version after English) 神能否做出一塊祂搬不到的石?

We will need to use the Proof by Contradiction:

Definition of Proof by contradiction:
If there is a sentence named "P", if we need to prove P is false, then we can try to assume that P is true first, then logically write down what we know about P. If it ends up something contradict P, then P must be false.

P => Q => S => …….=> ~P　　　　(~P means not P)

Of course, "Q, S...." statements must be true.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Proof: God can create a rock he cannot lift.

First, people want to proof this because they want to proof that God is not almighty. Of course, we need to assume God is Almighty.

If God is almighty (P), then God can create any rock.(Q)
If God can create any rock, then God can create a rock he cannot lift. (S)
If there is a rock that God cannot lift (T), then God is not Almighty(~P)
If God cannot create this rock(Q), then God is not Almighty(~Q)

So P is wrong!!!!!!!! God is not almighty!!!!!!!!

***NNNN NO NO No no no oooo ***

There is something wrong in the proof. "S" is contradict "P". This is logically wrong and contradict to the hypothesis (God is Almighty). This is the same thing as when we ask somebody to create a "circular square" which is contradicting itself.

Therefore, please do not ask me anymore about if God can create a rock he cannot lift. Thank you.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CHINESE VERSION
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

先要明白這推論所用的方法：

We will use the PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
假設有一個句子P。若要証明P是假的或錯的，只要能作以下一連串的邏輯推論：
P => Q => S => …….=> ~P　　　　(~P即not P)
若中間所有的步驟在邏輯上沒有錯誤，那麼即說明由P這假設開始，竟能推論出 ~P！

那麼問題一定在P本身！P一定是一句錯或假的句子了。這叫做「反証法」(proof by contradiction)。這方法的特色就是要從一個假設開始。

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

「神能否做一塊祂舉不起的石頭 ?」

本身就是想使用反証法來推翻「神是無所不能的」這假設的。
它背後的過程是：假設「神是全能的」(P)
=> 如果神是全能的 , 祂必定能造出任何石頭 (Q)
=> 但如果神能造出任何石頭, 祂必定能做一塊祂舉不起的石頭 (S)
=> 那麼就有一塊石頭是祂舉不起的(T)
=> 祂就並非全能(~P)；
=> 若果神不能造出一塊這樣的石頭(~Q)
=> 那麼祂也不是全能的(~P)。

以符號來表達，P => Q => ( S => T => ~P) or (~S => ~Q => ~P) => ~P∴ P本身不能成立。

因此，「神是無所不能的」這假設不成立。

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
不過，S本身已經和預先假設了的P有矛盾，因為S的意思是指有一塊神舉不起的石頭存在，這與最初的假設P有矛盾，在這情況下，邏輯上不能將S應用在申述之內。另外~S的意思是指有一塊石頭是神不能造出的，本身與P這假設有矛盾，也不能應用在申述之內。因此，在假設了神是全能的前題下，我們不能用「神能否造塊祂舉不起的石頭？」來否定這前設。總括來說，若假設了神全能是對的，這一句：「神能造塊祂舉不起的石頭　or 祂不能造塊祂舉不起的石頭」是一句內在矛盾的句子，就如「神能造個方形的圓　or 神不能造個方形的圓」矛盾一樣。(「方形的圓」的矛盾很容易看到，因為方和圓並不相容；而上述句子的矛盾是因「神是無所不能的」這前設下產生的．)

Thank you,

[P.S:

Note: One possible objection to this line of reasoning is "God is not bound by the rules of logic, as he created logic, therefore he can do the logically impossible as they are only logically impossible from our point of view". If this were the case, however, it would seem to be impossible for anyone to ever know anything about God at all, or attempt to understand him using reason and logic. It would make no sense for any theist to attempt to describe the character of their god as, for instance "good, merciful and loving" because there would be no reason to think that this could be true. You could not say, for example, that God is good because he has healed a person, as an illogical God could just as easily have done it for any reason at all other than goodness - by our standards it might appear to be "good", but that would be no reason to assume that it was good as far as God was concerned. ]

Ah B

My 1st Macintosh Computer

Recently, I got a new Mac computer. Yes, it is expensive. I of course have my reason to get it, but the reason is not important to put it here.

However, there is a good and close friend of mine keep saying that Apple inc. donates money to support same-sex marriage which has conflict with my Catholic religion catechism. Before, I think that she just wants to remind me and will stop saying this after 1 or 2 days. However, she keeps saying this. I somehow want to say "What do you want? I have my reason to get this laptop which you know it!!!! Stop criticizing my decision and my lovely Mac book!!!"

Of course, The reason I sound mad is somehow, I agree on her too. LOL... this idea keeps running in my brain days and days and days... (Yes, actually can't sleep Then, I opened my Bible and read the following scripture:

Tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22)

...then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.

"Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"

They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

Of course, I understand that buying a computer from Mac is totally different from paying tax to government. One thing came to my mind is that should we still pay tax to Canada government although we know that they are using our money to support "abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, war...etc" which are also conflicting our faith. According to Jesus, I think, yes, we should still pay tax. Not paying tax will not help on these situations. As a catholic, we should try our best to influence the government to avoid these kind of things.

As a Mac user now, I will try to send a letter to Apple Inc. and tell them my point of view. Also, as a catholic, we should keep doing evangilisation, teach people the "truth". Last Saturday in the Mandarin Sunday School class, one of my students asked me a very interesting question, "Do you think if a person hurts another person because he does not have a chance to learn anything about love, God or Jesus, will that person still goes to hell after he died?" My answer is, "I don't know. However, Jesus may blame to some of us (Catholic), because we did not do our job well which is ... " The 12-year-old kid said immidiately, "EVANGILISATION!!!!"... haha

Of course, I still don't know if my decision on buying a Mac is right or wrong, but I am sure that God knows what I am doing, and believe me or not, he (God) will "contact" me very quickly if I have something wrong.

with love,
Ah B

Can "Love" be eternal? 愛是永恆？

-- Chinese Version at the end --

Yesterday somebody asked me, "Can love really be eternal"?

I answered, "Yes".

He continued, "How do you know?"

At that moment, I did not know how to answer him, but I believed that my answer is right.

In fact, what does "Eternal" mean? If we do not use a religion angle to look into it, there is no way we can define it. Then, he keeps asking, "You are major in Maths in university, can you use Mathematics way to explain it?"

Eternal means Infinity. Infinity means nothing can be bounded.

However, mathematicians still cannot explain exactly to locate infinity.

In reality, time is defined by mankind. Besides religion, there is nothing can guarantee "Eternal love". Even with law and human nature which can only response to be able to see or hear the truth to decide whether you should be loved , that is what we called by evidence. However after you died, the law cannot gurantee "love" anymore.

God created humans, humans defined time that means God control time. Therefore, only love from God can be eternal. Also it is because of my faith, I believed that love can be eternal.

---

昨天，有人問我愛真的是永恆嗎？

我答：「是」

他又問我怎麼知道。

我就想了一想，不知道為什麼！

其實什麼是永恆呢？如果我們不用宗教的角度去看，根本就是不可能解釋。他又問：「你主修數學，如果用數學的方法去解釋是怎樣的？」

「永恆=無限」

「就連數學家到現在都不能解釋無限是什麼！」

其實，時間是人定出來的，除了宗教外，沒有一樣東西可以保証愛是永恆，就萛是法律和人性也只能因應能夠看到或聽到的事實來定你是否應該被愛，但當你死了後法律就不能保証了！

天主(神)做人，人定時間，即天主(神)掌管時問，所以只有天主(神)的愛才是永恆。就是因為我的信德，所以我信「愛是永恆」。

Cola War

Recently, I have been very busy on my radio works. When I look back, I can't believe that I have working on the Catholic Radio for 3 months!!!! These 3 months remind me that I do not know a lot on my religion. On the other hand, I have learnt a lot from it.

Of course, during these 3 months, I got lots of good comments and bad comments too. When I received good comments, obviously, I felt very happy. When I received bad comments, I actually always found that not appropriate. My first reaction always think like how come we need to be that formal when we talk about the catholic faith? Can we change it? Can we change the tast of the Catholic Teaching?

However, I linked this to the Cola Wars*:

By the mid-1970s, the Coca-Cola Company was a lumbering giant. Performance reflected this. Between 1976 and 1978, the growth rate of Coca-Cola soft drinks dropped from 13 percent annually to a meager 2 percent. As the giant stumbled, Pepsi Cola was finding heady triumphs. First came the “Pepsi Generation.” This advertising campaign captured the imagination of the baby boomers with its idealism and youth. This association with youth and vitality greatly enhanced the image of Pepsi and firmly associated it with the largest consumer market for soft drinks.

Then came another management coup, the “Pepsi Challenge,” in which comparative taste tests with consumers showed a clear preference for Pepsi. This campaign led to a rapid increase in Pepsi’s market share, from 6 to 14 percent of total U.S. soft-drink sales.

Coca-Cola, in defense, conducted its own taste tests. Alas, these tests had the same result—people liked the taste of Pepsi better, and market-share changes reflected this. By 1979, Pepsi was closing the gap on Coca-Cola, having 17.9 percent of the soft-drink market, to Coke’s 23.9 percent. By the end of 1984, Coke had only a 2.9 percent lead, while in the grocery store market it was now trailing by 1.7 percent. Further indication of the diminishing position of Coke relative to Pepsi was a study done by Coca-Cola’s own marketing research department. The study showed that in 1972, 18 percent of soft-drink users drank Coke exclusively, while only 4 percent drank only Pepsi. Only 12 percent now claimed loyalty to Coke, while the number of exclusive Pepsidrinkers almost matched, with 11 percent.

What made the deteriorating comparative performance of Coke all the moreworrisome and frustrating to Coca-Cola was that it was outspending Pepsi in advertisingby $100 million. It had twice as many vending machines, dominated fountains,had more shelf space, and was competitively priced.

With the market-share erosion of the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite strong advertisingand superior distribution, the company began to look at the soft-drink productitself. Taste was suspected as the chief culprit in Coke’s decline, and marketing research seemed to confirm this. In September 1984, the technical division developeda sweeter flavor. In perhaps the biggest taste test ever, costing $4 million, 55percent of 191,000 people approved it over Pepsi and the original formula of Coke.Top executives unanimously agreed to change the taste and take the old Coke off themarket.

That's why there is the word "Classics" on the Coca-Cola can.

From this, I learnt that I need to modify my talking style according to the audience. If I got comments, either good or bad, I should try to balance it out. This is what we can improve our creativity.

- Ah B

*Source: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/16/04717432/0471743216-3.pdf

My Dream

Today, accidently, I read one of a letter that I wrote for applying to teaching position. Obviously, I did not get into teaching, but my tear ran down again when I read this. I would like to share this with all of you today:

The following describes my ambition and my desire in education. 1997 is a very important year for me.

In the beginning of the year, I met my first student. At that time, I was a Mathematics tutor and I was teaching secondary 4 and 5 level of Mathematics, in French. At the end ofthe semester, I received a thank-you card from her. This is the first meaningful thing I have done in my life.Even today, I can still remember the special feeling from that thank-you card. Since then, I told myself that Ihave to do more things like that to make mylife more colorful and cheerful. In same year, I went back to Hong Kong in the summer. As a coincident, I met Mr. Charles Yu, who is one of the famous Emotional Quotient (EQ) trainers in Hong Kong. He invited me to work in his company and I was so excited. During the 3 months in Hong Kong, I have learnt lots of EQ techniques.

Afterwards, I came back to Montreal to continue with my studies. Meanwhile, I continued to work as a Mathematics tutor for several levels, from secondary school to college. After my graduation from university, I worked as a teacher in a high school. The main task is to teach students who have learning disability in Mathematics.

During these 10 years, I was trying to combine EQ and Mathematics’ learning together. Since then, almostevery summer, I returned to Charles Yu Training Company to learn more teaching skills. In year 2000, I became an EQ trainer in the company. From 2003 to 2004, I started up a brand new course called “How tobecome an EQ mathematician” in Hong Kong. There were over 80 students who had registered to the course.

Last year, I have formed a training group called Billy Chan Training Team (http://www.chanbilly.com). I have trained 6 youths to be my teammates. We created the first French Leadership Summer camp in the Montreal Chinese community. Because of the excellent feedback, we started the first EQ course right after. There were around a hundred students who took my class in the year 2006.

I have currently graduated as a Master of Science. I think it is time for me to move on to another step in mycareer. When I look at my history in terms of education, career and my passion, education simply standsout to be the best chice for me. I love to teach and I enjoy being a teacher. In the past 10 years, I have taught over 10 000 students. From their supportive and enthusiastic feedback, it illustrates that, and I alsobelieve that, I am a good teacher. By adding EQ elements and techniques in teaching can actually motivatestudents to learn. Over these teaching years, it tells me that increasing learning motivation is the mostimportant thing in the classroom. This is not only teaching students with the required materials; we can also teach them how to learn by themselves.

Last week, I attended to one of my students’ convocation. I looked at him when he was walking onto the stage to be given the degree diploma. I remembered in the old days, the time that he did not like science atall and now, he graduated with a degree in Bachelor of Science. My tears ran down and I talked to God,“Thanks for giving me an opportunity to teach.”

- It was my dream.... Ah B