Latest Noah's Ark 'Just Wood Planted on Ararat'

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Has the real Noah's Ark spoken of in the Bible truly been found?
At least two seasoned archaeologists who have made numerous expeditions to Mount Ararat in search of Noah's Ark are throwing cold water on this week's claim the Old Testament vessel has finally been discovered, saying it's a hoax involving wood hauled in from the Black Sea region.

In this photo from Noah's Ark Ministries International, an explorer is purported to be investigating a wooden structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that it says may be the remnant of Noah's Ark mentioned in the Bible.

"To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake," said Randall Price, director of Judaic Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.
"This is not Noah's Ark," adds Bob Cornuke of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute. "This is a fake. It's a fraud and it's of the highest caliber according to what I can assess from the evidence and talking to eyewitnesses and people from Turkey."
WND reported yesterday that Chinese and Turkish explorers with Noah's Ark Ministries International said they were "99.9 percent sure" they found the remnants of the legendary biblical vessel high up on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.
The 15-member team claims it recovered wooden specimens from a structure at an altitude of 13,000 feet and that carbon dating suggested it was 4,800 years old.
Yes, Noah's Ark is completely real! Now find out "what you don't Noah" about the story as well as your spectacular destiny they rarely ever mention in church in this autographed No. 1 best-seller!
Several compartments, some with wooden beams, are said to be inside and could have been used to house animals, the group indicated.
"The search team has made the greatest discovery in history," declared Prof. Oktay Belli, an archaeologist at Istanbul University. "This finding is very important and the greatest up to now."
Some video has been posted on YouTube and can be seen here:


But Dr. Price, who is spearheading efforts to explore two competing locations for Noah's Ark, sent an e-mail dispatch to supporters with his personal take on the alleged find, asserting the structure is a hoax perpetrated by a Kurdish guide and his partners to extort money from Chinese evangelical Christians.
"I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark," he wrote in his message dated April 26.

The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut's men to the site saw the wood, but couldn't get inside because of the severe weather conditions.During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubayazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.
To my knowledge, the Chinese took no professional archaeologist or geologist who could verify or document the wood or the structure.

In the wake of the e-mail's circulation online, a subsequent statement was issued tonight, which stated, "While Dr. Price does not retract his statements, he wants the public to understand that these only represent his opinion as informed by his experience with the Kurdish guide and the Chinese and other sources in eastern Turkey."
It went on to say Price "urges the Chinese-Turkish team to make their collected samples from the structure available to scientists and scholars for comparative analysis.While he has reservations about the nature and procedure of the Chinese-Turkish expedition and the artifacts related to it, he believes that a decision concerning this matter must wait until independent examinations of the site and the structure can be made and published."
Another ark-hunter, Richard Rives of Tennessee-based Wyatt Archaeological Research, said while he's skeptical of the new alleged find, he's not completely ruling it out it just yet.
"Just because Randall Price says something doesn't make it so," Rives told WND. "We don't know what it is until we get a little more information. It is something of interest. I can't wait to find out to find out the real truth."
Rives noted one thing that seemed strange was the wood reportedly discovered appeared in excellent condition.
"The wood's in too good a shape to be that old," he said.

Is this a beam from Noah's Ark? Explorers with Noah's Ark Ministries International have released this photo of a wooden structure it says it has documented at an altitude of 13,000 feet on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.

Regarding some of the photos published online, Cornuke told American Family Radio, "There are cobwebs up in the beams. You're not going to have wood at 14,000 feet in a glacier to have cobwebs in it. It's impossible to have that situation."

This photo of what is alleged to be wood inside a possible site of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat reveals apparent cobwebs, which archaeologist Bob Cornuke says would be impossible in a glacier at high altitude (photo: Noah's Ark Ministries International).

He agrees with Price about wood being transported up Ararat, saying "a lot of the beams that you see were actually imported into the mountain probably in 2008."
Cornell archaeologist Peter Ian Kuniholm, who has focused on Turkey for decades, called the alleged discovery a "crock."
"There's not enough H2O in the world to get an ark that high up a mountain," Kuniholm said.
Archaeologist Paul Zimansky of Stony Brook University in New York said he'd welcome learning more about the site. "It would be nice to know what they have found – if there's a scientific publication in the offing," he told MSNBC.com. "Press releases are not the way archaeology advances."

He added: "It's not inconceivable to me that they've found pieces of wood at that level, but that doesn't mean they've found an ark."
If the latest proclaimed find of Noah's Ark does indeed turn out to be false, it certainly would not be the first time phony claims have been floated.
Among the best-known scams is one from 1993, when California actor George Jammal deliberately duped CBS Television and the filmmakers of "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" into believing he saw and touched the vessel on Mount Ararat.
According to the Internet Movie Database, Jammal "made the hoax as blatant as possible, making up persons with names such as 'the Armenian friend, Mr. Allis Buls Hitian' or 'my dear Polish companion Vladimir Sobitchsky,' and cooking a piece of pine in sauce to present it as 'a piece of the Ark' – and yet his story was presented as the real thing and shown as the key testimony in the video; after some time, humiliating its makers, Jammal publicly revealed the details of his hoax."

The Press-Telegram of Long Beach, Calif., was among those documenting a Noah's Ark hoax perpetrated by Southern California actor George Jammal in 1993. Jammal admitted cooking railroad tracks in sauce to create "sacred wood" he claimed he had retrieved from the biblical vessel on Mount Ararat.

With attention refocused on the vessel mentioned in the Book of Genesis, Rives says there are several key points about a well-known alternate site he has explored some 15 miles from Mount Ararat, featuring an object that resembles a boat on a smaller mountain in Dogubayazit, Turkey.

Many believe this might be Noah's Ark, already found on a mountain next to Mount Ararat (courtesy: wyattmuseum.com).

It was first photographed in 1959 by a Turkish air-force pilot on a NATO mapping mission, and gained worldwide attention after its image was published in a 1960 issue of Life Magazine. Rives summarized evidence for the possibility that site could be the resting place of the ship, indicating:

• A boat-shaped object 300 cubits in length can plainly be seen in the mountains of Ararat or Urartu. Visible, equable, and symmetrical features can be examined. Subsurface interface radar scans reveal buried features which, once again, are equable and symmetrical.

• Much of the material found at the site is fossilized and contains organic carbon, demonstrating that it was once associated with living matter. The presence of organic carbon has been verified by multiple scientific laboratories. Plant and animal fibers have also been found within the object and have been documented by way of forensic testing.

• In addition, metal artifacts found at the site are composed of a combination of metals such as modern day sophisticated alloys – once again, verified by metallurgical laboratories.

His museum's website features on-location photographs and charts, making its case with physical evidence including radar scans of bulkheads on the alleged vessel, deck timber and iron rivets and large "drogue" stones, which may have acted as types of anchors.
(Story continues below)

However, there's been no shortage of critics from both scientific and Christian circles who think the Dogubayazit site is erroneous.
Lorence Collins, a retired geology professor from California State University, Northridge, joined the late David Fasold, a one-time proponent of that site, in writing a scientific summary claiming the location is "bogus."
"Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation," said the 1996 paper published in the Journal of Geoscience Education. "It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it."
Today's interactive WND poll focused on the purported discovery, and 32 percent of respondents said, "I don't know if this is the Ark, but I have no doubt Noah and his flood are reality, as all civilizations tell a similar story."
Another 26 percent indicated, "It may be that in this increasingly faithless age, God is unearthing some bits of faith-enhancing evidence."
Some reader comments about the issue include:

• "To be realistic, it was a boat made of wood. It was abandoned, almost certainly exposed to the elements, before the rise of Egypt [some] 5,000 years ago or more. If that was the case, it would almost certainly have rotted away to nothing, probably before Christ."

• "I don't need tangible evidence that Noah's Ark existed. I have 100% faith in God and the Bible. If God said it happened, it happened. God does not lie."

• "I'm a dummy, so somebody has to tell me how kangaroos and Tasmanian devils made it to the Ark and back at just the right time."

In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of Noah's Ark, and Jesus Christ and the apostles Paul and Peter all make reference to Noah's flood as an actual historical event.
According to Genesis, Noah was a righteous man who was instructed by God to construct a large vessel to hold his family and many species of animals, as a massive deluge was coming to purify the world, which had become corrupt.
Genesis 6:5 states: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Noah was told by God to take aboard seven pairs of each of the "clean" animals – that is to say, those permissible to eat – and two each of the "unclean" variety (Genesis 7:2).
Though the Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it also mentions "the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."
Genesis 8:4 does not say the ark rested on "Mount Ararat," but rather the "mountains of Ararat," and it was still months before Noah and his family – his wife, his three sons and the sons' wives – were able to leave the ark and begin replenishing the world.
Note: Media wishing to interview Joe Kovacs, please contact him.

Source.

Question That Proof Existence Of God

Proof #1: The theodice problem:

We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?
It is true that God cannot be both almighty and good if you restrict Him to our level - three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this God is not the God of reality or Christianity, since both the Bible and science would indicate that God must exist in more than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The Bible says the universe cannot contain God (1), indicating He must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began (2), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.
Both of these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science. According to particle physics and relativity, at least nine dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. God must be able to operate in all of those nine dimensions in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews indicates God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3). Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (4). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Therefore, if God created the universe, He was acting before the creation of time, indicating He exists in at least two dimensions of time. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future.
The main problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the reason for the creation of the universe. The universe was not created to be good. God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has allowed His creatures free-will to do whatever they want within their limited dimensionality. God has designed the universe to operate under a set of physical principles, which He, only occasionally, suspends. If God were to suspend the laws of physics on a regular basis the universe would be a universe of chaos and unpredictability. Such as universe would not be a good testing ground for confused mortal beings. The purpose of the universe is to allow God's creatures the choice to love Him. Love is not possible without free-will. Therefore God chooses to allow His creatures the ability to do evil for the purpose of permitting them also to love. If God controlled everything we did, we could not demonstrate love, since we would be pre-programmed to respond. A computer cannot love, but free-will beings can.
The temporary nature of the universe and created beings requires that the universe operate under the law of entropy. If there were no entropy, we could not be tested since we would, by definition, be eternal and not have to face the mortality of our existence. Such an existence would not require our dependence upon God, since we would never have to face Him. The law of entropy guarantees our mortality and that we will suffer pain and death at some point. Neither pain nor death is evil from a Christian perspective. For example, pain is a necessary function in our lives. If we could not feel pain, we would end up causing serious damage to ourselves. Whenever I get burned, I move my hand rapidly away from the source of the pain. If I had no pain receptors, I would probably continue to burn my hand until I noticed the smoke. This would obviously not be a good thing to do. Likewise, death is required in a universe governed by entropy. Without animal death, very soon all the carbon on the earth would be bound in living organisms, with none available for photosynthesis.
Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.
Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.

Proof #2: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.

Proof #3: The ontological evidence

It is necessary that God is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a God. Not any of the existing religions can provide such a God. Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against God holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There are several hundred million Christians who believe the Christian God is worth worshipping. However, there are other religions which worship other Gods. Therefore, this cannot be a valid criteria for determining whether God exists or not.
God both has and continues to communicate with humans. Men with which He has communicated have written His words in the Bible. Those who are born-again Christians communicate with God on a daily basis. When I was an agnostic, I didn't believe this could be possible. However, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, His Spirit indwells me and talks to me (The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Romans 8:16).
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against God, that you can do to try the existence of God. Pray, and ask God to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that God exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no God.
I am surprised that this example is listed as a test for the Christian God. There are some major problems with the validity of this test, since the Bible tells us this test will fail. The Old Testament tells us not to test God (5). This concept was reinforced by Jesus when He was tempted by Satan, who told Him to jump off the temple wall. Jesus cited the same verse from Deuteronomy not to test God (6). Therefore the only thing this test proves is that God is not the God of some non-Christian religion.
However, there is a test you can do which will give valid results. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (John 14:21) This is the only valid direct test for the Christian God's existence. However, it will cost you your life (7), and require you to bend your knee in submission (8). I can tell you from experience that Jesus will follow through with His promise and reveal Himself to you, and surprisingly, you will be filled with great joy (9).
"God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than God because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than God then either God cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or God is the known world, in which case, by definition, God is not a God."
The Bible never defines God as infinite, but defines Him as existing beyond the limitations of our four dimensional universe. This does not mean that He is infinite. Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding (10). Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as being physically infinite.

Proof #4: Occam's razor

Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in English: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labor which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent God. A God which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in himself has his own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning.
Occam's razor is actually a good argument for the existence of God. I will explain shortly. Contrary to the statements above, the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. The universe had a beginning in finite time at the moment of the Big Bang. How did this universe decide to create itself? How did the universe design itself with physical laws and parameters exactly fine tuned to support life? The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. For example, take the ratio of the number of electrons to protons. This ratio must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 10³⁷ (10 to the 37th power, or "1" followed by 37 zeros), otherwise electromagnetic forces would have superseded gravitational forces and no galaxies, stars or planets would have ever formed in the entire history of the universe. The likelihood of this occurring by chance is described below:

One part in 10³⁷ is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10³⁷.¹¹

Other constants of physics, such as the expansion rate of the universe, are fine-tuned even more delicately, as small as one part in 10⁵⁵. Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If one were to calculate the number of universes required, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ (talk about multiplying entities!). The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation. Check these papers for some of the other parameters for both the universe and our planet, which are designed to exact standards.
The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.
"Most theists agree that God has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created God's nature? If we just accept that God has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"
God is uncreated, therefore His nature is just as eternal as He is. Although it is possible the universe and the physical laws could exist without a cause, 1 in 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ is not exactly what one would call good betting odds. It would be much more likely that your car's engine would thermodynamically reverse itself (i.e., freeze solid instead of warm up) every time you started it.

Proof #5: Some things are impossible to do

There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If God were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.
Contradictions are not possible by definition. Therefore they are impossible by definition in this four dimensional universe. All the things that are impossible in our universe are so because they are defined to be impossible. If you restrict God to our four dimensional universe, He would, likewise, be unable to do those things. However, God is not restricted to our universe. In addition, God can do anything if He changed the laws of physics, which He promises to do in the New Creation.
Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.
Definition of miracle: Something that violates the laws of physics. God can suspend the laws of physics to provide proof for His existence. He does this on occasion, but not routinely, since routine suspension of physical laws would drive us crazy - nothing would be predictable. Not only is it logically possible to stand above our dimensions of time and space, it is required, according to particle physics studies, for the universe to have come into existence.

Proof #6: God's omniscience restricts His free will

Also, if God knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus God's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If God has no free will God is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If God stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if God stands above all dimensions God is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!
The Christian God exists in at least two time dimensions, therefore His free-will is not hindered by our dimension of time. He stands both above and within our time line, since our line of time runs through His plane of time. The argument totally falls apart at this point.

Proof #7: God cannot be almighty and allow free will simultaneously

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if God is almighty. If you had a free will, God wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.
The two dimensions of time take care of this one, too. God knows what each person will do and can put him anywhere in our time line to accomplish His purposes. Complete free-will and complete predestination is possible in two dimensions of time. However, this concept may require some time to think about.

Proof #8: God must be created so why does the universe need a Creator

If everything must have been created, then God must have been created as well. If God is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?

The Christian God exists in two dimensions of time, by definition being uncreated. The universe exists in only one dimension of time, which Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose tell us must have begun at the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe must have been created at the beginning of our dimension of time. Most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. It is possible that some multiverse (super-universe) created our universe, but there is no observational evidence to support this idea. Despite the lack of evidence, most atheists who know anything about cosmology believe in the existence of some kind of multiverse.

Proof #10: God has never contacted me. He must not exist.

We would never notice God: This is not an evidence against God, but rather describes the lack of sense in praying to a God who stands above time.
However, the Christian God exists both within and outside of our single dimension of time. Existing in at least two dimensions of time, God is not restricted to always following our time line, but can, through His second dimension of time, spend as much time as He likes at any point on our time line. This concept is stated biblically in 2 Peter (13). Therefore, if 100 million people are praying to Him simultaneously, He is able to stay at that point in our time line for as long as necessary to hear and respond to their prayers.

Proof #12: If God existed, prayer would have already changed the world into the best possible world.

If somebody would pray to God and God would listen, the laws would change to achieve the desired result. Thus the world would be different and the prayer would never have been said. Besides God would already (in an "above time" sense of view) know that you would pray, and already have changed the world. Prayers would be totally meaningless. We would already live in the best world possible, and any prayer would be to doubt the wisdom of God.
Again, a complete lack of understanding of the Christian reason for prayer. Prayer is communication with God. Communication is a two way conversation, not a monologue of telling God what to do. If Christians were perfect, every prayer would be answered because we would always be within the will of God. However, as most people are well aware, Christians are not perfect and often pray against God's will. God will not do anything against His will and therefore will not grant our selfish requests. I could pray that God would let me win the lottery (if I played it). However, God knows that I would become greedy, buy all kinds of computers and gadgets, and ignore Him. It is in my best interest that I remain middle class (it might even be better for my spiritual life if I become poor - I hope not!). The main problem is that we are stupid and selfish creatures, and don't really know what is best for us. However, God, being omniscient, does know what is best for us (16). Therefore, the purpose of prayer is not to tell God what to do, but to be conformed to the will of God (i.e., listen to Him).

Nobody really believes in God

Many atheists tend to stereotype Christians as stupid, uneducated people. However, I personally know dozens of scientists who are Christians, and not only believe in God, but can rationally present evidence for His existence. In our department at the Research Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center we have no atheists - although we have one agnostic. All the other people - 4 M.D.'s, 2 Ph.D.'s, 3 R.N.'s, and the others, with B.S.'s or M.S.'s - are theistic. Christianity specifically calls people to use their brains. As Robert Griffiths (Heinemann prize in mathematical physics) stated:

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." (17)

It is the atheist who now denies the implications of modern cosmology and physics because they imply the existence of a Creator. Those who believe the Big Bang correctly describes the origin of the universe, must admit that the universe had a beginning in finite time and space. Did it just pop into existence on its own? Did it just happen to have exactly the right physical laws and constants required for life? It is the atheist who must believe in miracles to explain our existence. Therefore, John Gribbin, an atheist physicist has stated:

"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical - perhaps even theological - what was there before the bang?" (18)

The primary objection to the Big Bang and its implications is this "God problem," not because of a lack of scientific evidence. Geoffrey Burbidge, astronomer from U.C. San Diego has recognized the implications of the 1992 COBE satellite discoveries, when he complained that his fellow astronomers were rushing off to join, "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." (19)
The fact that the evidence in support of the existence of God has increased in recent years is also a problem. According to atheists, science is supposed to get rid of the gaps, so that there is no longer any room for a "god of the gaps." This evidence has convinced some famous atheists to become deists (e.g., Antony Flew) or even Christians (e.g., Frank Tipler).

If God exists, how can we know what religion properly describes Him?

If God is so mysterious, how can we know anything about him? Through the Bible? How do we know that the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedha books, for example, are the words of God? (or the Bible if you believe in any of the other two books). Considering the cruelties that have been made in the name of God, how do we know that not all religions are made by Satan?
The God of the Koran and Hindu Vedas are Gods restricted to the time and space dimensions of this universe and, therefore, are logically impossible (check out some of your own proofs). In addition, most of these books contain scientific absurdities. All the so-called holy books base their claim of authority on the basis of fulfilled prophecy. Most of these prophecies are either vague or conditional, making them essentially untestable. The highest percentage of prophecy fulfillment, other than the Bible is 50%, with many other prophecies proven to be false. In contrast, the Bible names people, places and dates in remarkable detail, with 2,000 of the nearly 2,500 prophecies already fulfilled, and none provably false. The remaining prophecies are reserved for the end-times, which have yet to have happened.
I absolutely agree with atheists who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. Remember the words of Jesus:

"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:22-23)

Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people truly are Christians. Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of what people do who merely claim to be Christians.

Source: godandscience.org

Tuhan.

Di sini saya akan menuliskan beberapa pertanyaan soal Tuhan Yang Maha Esa. Pertanyaan yang seharusnya alami terpikirkan saat seseorang sedang merenungkan Tuhan. Mungkin juga ada yang bisa memberi jawabannya? Tetapi saya tetap tidak akan mempercayai Tuhan jika saya tidak mengerti akan sifatnya, jahat atau baik?


1. Kemahatahuan Tuhan

Ini pertanyaan dasar yang bersarang di otak saya. Jika Tuhan adalah Maha Tahu dan sudah tahu segalanya dari dulu, sampai selama-lamanya, lantas, untuk apa lagi Tuhan melakukan sesuatu? Apakah Tuhan sudah tahu nama semua orang yang akan lahir? Ya. Tuhan sudah tahu seluruh pikiran kita dari detik kita lahir sampai kita mati? Ya. Tuhan sudah tahu setiap piilihan yang akan kita ambil? Ya. Tuhan tahu kita akan masuk neraka atau surga? Ya juga! Jadi sebenarnya di mata Tuhan, tidak ada yang berubah. Jika Anda bertobat, Tuhan sudah mengetahuinya dari dulu. Jika Anda membunuh orang, Tuhan juga sudah tahu dari dulu. Jadi Tuhan tidak menguji kita, tetapi hanya menonton kita. Tetapi hasil akhirnya Dia sudah tahu sejak awal. Karena Dialah pengarang ceritanya.

2. Apakah hidup kita diatur Tuhan?

Saya berpikir, jika Tuhan Maha Tahu, ada dua kemungkinan:

Yang pertama, Dia yang mengatur segala tindakan kita. Jadi jika Anda sekarang sedang memikirkan hal-hal jahat, itu karena Tuhan yang membuatnya seperti itu. Atau jika Anda suka marah-marah, itu juga karena takdir dari Tuhan. Ini berarti kita tidak punya pilihan. Hidup ini adalah permainan Tuhan, dan kita mainannya. Berarti masuk neraka atau surga itu bukan karena perbuatan kita, tetapi karena takdir dari Tuhan. Tidak ada keselamatan. Yang ada adalah takdir yang tidak bisa diubah.

Yang kedua, Tuhan memang sudah tahu, tetapi bukan Tuhan yang mengaturnya, Dia hanya tahu saja. Mungkin inilah yang akan dijawab para pemercaya Tuhan. Sebenarnya saya bahkan tidak bisa membayangkan bagaimana caranya bisa mengetahui segalanya (semua hal) tetapi bukan dia yang mengaturnya. Tetapi saya tidak bisa mengatakan itu tidak mungkin, karena tidak ada penjelasan masuk akal (atau masuk hati)nya. Jadi saya ganti pertanyaannya saja. Kalau bukan Tuhan yang mengatur hidup kita, berarti hidup adalah pilihan kita sendiri. Tetapi Tuhan sudah tahu semuanya. Jadi, terserah Anda mau melakukan apa, tidak masalah bagi Tuhan, karena dia sudah tahu. Jika Anda dulunya miskin, kemudian tiba-tiba jadi kaya, itu bukan karena Tuhan, tetapi karena usaha sendiri. Tapi heran juga, kadang ada yang bilang kalau ada orang yang jahat pada kita, itu adalah ujian dari Tuhan. Padahal Tuhan sudah tahu semuanya, untuk apa menguji? Lalu, orang yang dipakai untuk menguji itu, berarti adalah sudah Tuhan takdirkan untuk berbuat jahat? Dan itu berarti mengakui bahwa kesimpulan pertamalah yang benar. (Tuhan Maha Tahu dan yang menentukan semua pilihan manusia, termasuk waktu ular goda Hawa, dan dia juga sudah tahu Adam akan jatuh dalam dosa sebelum Dia menciptakan Adam, tetapi waktu itu terjadi, Tuhan berakting seolah-olah Dia kaget dengar Adam makan buah pengetahuan. Padahal pantas saja kalo Adam langgar perintah Tuhan, kan waktu itu dia belum tahu apa-apa, masih bego.)

3. Agama mana yang benar?

Jika saya lahir di Arab, saya akan beragama Islam. Dan otomatis saya menganggap di luar agama saya adalah kafir. Tetapi tiap agama (yang memercayai afterlife surga-neraka) juga mengatakan hal yang sama. Jadi yang mana yang benar? Dan sebenarnya apa yang menjadi agama Anda saat ini hanyalah suatu kebetulan. (Mungkin takdir dari Tuhan juga?) Jadi seandainya agama Anda yang salah, Anda yang masuk neraka, dan itu sudah takdir Anda. Bagaimana di jaman dulu orang-orang yang beriman pada Zeus? Waktu agama yang ada saat ini belum ada di jaman itu? Apakah mereka semua sial? Kenapa Tuhan dari awal tidak bilang saja kalau Tuhan yang menciptakan manusia, apakah ada yang perlu dikuatirkan? Seharusnya Tuhan bisa, karena Dia itu Maha. Itu juga kalau Dia sayang sama manusia. Tidak usah memakai cara yang susah, seperti dengarkan kata hati (atau apapun sebutannya). Karena ada juga orang yang dari kecil lingkungannya adalah lingkungan penjahat, dan dia juga jadi jahat karena lingkungannya, jadi dia tidak akan pernah dengar kata hati. (mungkin pernah, kalau kata hatinya itu bilang berbuat jahat.) Kenapa Tuhan harus memakai perantara? Memangnya ada kata "harus" untuk Tuhan? Kalau Tuhan masuk di dunia, kita tidak akan tahan? Jadi intinya, Tuhan "tidak bisa" masuk ke dunia tanpa membuat dunia hancur. Berarti ada yang mustahil bagi Tuhan.

Anda masih bisa menjawab: Tuhan bisa, tetapi Tuhan tidak berkehendak. Kenapa Tuhan tidak mau? Apakah Dia tidak sayang ciptaannya? Kalau Anda mengatakan Tuhan memang tidak peduli dengan ciptaan-Nya, baru bisa disetujui.

Tidak perlu masuk ke dunia ini, sebenarnya Tuhan bisa kasih kita tanda yang gampang saja, tetapi sudah cukup untuk membuktikan Tuhan ada. Bisa kan Tuhan mengukir tulisan yang membuktikan Dia ada, tulisan yang besar di langit. Seharusnya tidak susah bagi Tuhan.

Ada juga orang yang mengatakan tidak mungkin alam ini ada dengan sendirinya, karena alam ini sungguh rumit dan teratur sistemnya. (Padahal di alam ini sebenarnya banyak yang tidak teratur, tapi kita anggap saja begitu, haha.) Hukum alamnya sangat rapi, pasti ada yang menciptakan! Tetapi mereka masih saja mempercayai hal-hal mistis dan membuat hoax-hoax aneh. Dan kalau ada suatu hal yang menurutnya adalah ajaib, langsung mengatakan bahwa itu bukti kemahakuasaan Tuhan. Jadi? Argumen seperti itu menyatakan bahwa alam ini teratur ataupun tidak teratur adalah kehendak Tuhan.

4. Di Surga masih ada dosa?

Bukti utamanya, Iblis. Dalam versi K, iblis itu jadi sombong dan mau menyamai Tuhan. Jadi, dia jatuh dalam dosa dan dilempar ke Bumi. (Mungkin ular itu Lucifer!) Akhirnya disebut malaikat jatuh, padahal namanya berarti pembawa cahaya. (Lux dan Ferre.) Jadi di Surga itu masih ada kemungkinan berdosa? Lucifer yang tidak punya kehendak saja bisa dosa di Surga, apalagi kita yang aslinya dari manusia? Sementara dalam versi I, Iblis tidak mau menyembah Adam, jadi Iblis dapat murka dari Allah. Dan Iblis bertugas untuk mencobai menusia di Bumi sampai hari kiamat. Dan tempatnya Iblis itu di Neraka. Sama saja, dulunya juga Iblis ini di Surga kan, dan dia juga malaikat Allah yang tidak punya kehendak? Tetapi kenapa bisa tidak mematuhi perintah Allah? Lagipula, di sini perintah Allah tidak konsisten. Allah memerintahkan agar semua ciptaannya hanya menyembah kepada Allah, tetapi Dia sendiri menyuruh malaikat-malaikat-Nya untuk menyembah Adam. Aneh kan? Dan parahnya, Tuhan sudah tahu semua skenario itu dari dulu, tetapi berpura-pura saja kaget dengan ketidakpatuhan Iblis itu.

Jadi jawabannya di Surga masih ada dosa, dan kita masih mungkin dimasukkan ke Neraka. Tapi kita boleh mencoba memperkirakan lagi. Anggap saja tentang Iblis itu adalah pengecualian, atau anggap saja itu memang sudah takdirnya Iblis.

Di Surga nanti tidak akan ada dosa lagi. Lalu apakah kita punya kehendak?

Kalau jawabannya ya:
Berarti kita masih bisa berbuat jahat? Sementara dikatakan di surga tidak ada lagi kejahatan dan kekacauan. Kita aman di surga. Tetapi kenapa kita masih punya kehendak? Berarti tidak amanlah di surga. Atau mungkin begini! Di Surga itu tidak ada kehendak jahat lagi. Yang ada hanya kehendak baik. Kalau begitu kenapa dari awal Tuhan tidak menciptakan saja manusia seperti itu? Makhluk baik, tidak punya nafsu jahat, tidak punya pikiran jahat? Kenapa harus mengetes dulu manusia di dunia(yang katanya Tuhanpun sebenarnya sudah tahu hasil pengetesan manusianya)? Jadinya banyak manusia yang masuk neraka. (Yaitu orang yang di luar agama itu, meskipun orangnya baik, dan orang yang tidak menjalankan perintah Tuhan.) Katanya Tuhan tidak mau manusia jadi robot. Kalau begitu, kenapa Tuhan tidak membuat manusia langsung seperti waktu di Surga saja? Punya kehendak, tetapi hanya kehendak baik. Ada yang bilang; itu kan terserah Tuhan, memangnya kamu siapa mau atur-atur Tuhan?
Baik, jadi itu terserah Tuhan, dan berarti Tuhan tidak Maha Penyayang, karena Dia melakukan semaunya saja...

Kalau jawabannya tidak punya kehendak:
Berarti tujuan akhir kita hidup di dunia adalah menjadi robot yang menyembah Tuhan. Lalu untuk apa Tuhan membuat manusia punya kehendak? (Biasanya kalau saya bertanya begitu, saya akan dijawab Tuhan tidak ingin manusia seperti robot. Tetapi saya baru menemukan pertanyaan lain, lantas kenapa di Surga kita jadi seperti robot?) Harusnya Tuhan menciptakan manusia tidak punya kehendak dari awal, karena tujuan akhirnya kan buat jadi robot juga, siapa yang tidak jadi robot, masuk neraka. Itu juga bikin rugi Tuhan, soalnya Tuhan sudah tahu kalau manusia diciptakan dengan kehendak, jadinya seperti apa, Tuhan pasti sudah tahu berapa jumlah yang gagal di Bumi. Jadi ada 3 pihak yang rugi. Tuhan, karena ciptaan-Nya yang Dia sangat cintai ada yang masuk neraka. Kedua, manusia kafir yang ada di Neraka disiksa selamanya dan selamanya sampai selama-lamanya. Lalu yang terkahir, orang yang masuk surga, tetapi keluarga atau orang yang dia cintai masuk neraka. (kecuali kalau orang itu memang sudah tidak punya perasaan, perasaannya diambil oleh Tuhan.)
Tapi tetap saja itu tidak harus bagi Tuhan. Terserah Tuhan kalau mau seperti apa. Tetapi yah, itu berarti Tuhan bukan penyayang dan Dia Maha Kejam.

5. Kapan dan Di Mana Tuhan ada?

Kalau ditanya kapan, mungkin jawabannya Tuhan itu sudah ada dari dulu dan akan selalu ada. Tidak berawal dan tidak berakhir. Tetapi ternyata ada yang seperti Tuhan. Energi, kekal, tidak berawal dan tidak berakhir... Jadi, kalau energi itu bukan Tuhan, berarti energi itu temannya Tuhan yang sudah ada dari dulu sampai selama-lamanya. Tapi bisa saja Tuhan mampu melenyapkan energi, karena Tuhan itu tidak terikat hukum alam.

Di mana Tuhan sebelum Dia menciptakan semuanya? Di Surga? Jadi Surga siapa yang ciptakan? Tuhan juga. Sebelum Surga diciptakan, Tuhan di mana? Tidak tau. Ada yang memakai analagi begini:
Dingin itu adalah kertiadaan panas.
Gelap itu adalah ketiadaan cahaya.
Dan kejahatan itu adalah ketiadaan Tuhan di dalam hati manusia...
Jadi, Neraka adalah tempat di mana tidak ada Allah di dalamnya. Di Surga itu ada Tuhan. Jadi sebelum surga ada, Tuhan itu ada di tempat di mana tidak ada Tuhan! Yaitu di Neraka. (Kan Neraka itu artinya tempat yang bukan Surga. Waktu itu belum ada yang diciptakan. Surga juga tidak ada, berarti yang ada adalah tempat yang bukan Surga, yaitu Neraka, kan tidak pernah dikatakan Tuhan itu menciptakan Neraka?) Kalaupun Tuhan yang menciptakan Neraka, tetapi tidak menjawab pertanyaan di mana Tuhan sebelum Dia menciptakan segalanya?

Ada yang bilang Tuhan itu tidak terikat dengan konsep ruang dan waktu. Tapi kenapa ada yang bilang Tuhan itu ada di Surga dan duduk di singgasananya? Berarti Tuhan masih dalam konsep ruang. Kecuali itu hanyalah kata-kata metaforis. Dan jangan-jangan semua perintah Tuhan itu metaforis...

6. Kenapa Tuhan menciptakan manusia?

Karena cintaNya yang besar kepada umat manusia. Lho, bukannya waktu itu manusia belum diciptakan... Bagaimana mencintai sesuatu yang belum Dia ciptakan? Lagipula, memangnya manusia itu pernah meminta untuk diciptakan? Kenapa Tuhan bisa mengira manusia akan bahagia kalau diciptakan? Berarti tidak mungkinlah pernyataan ini.

Alternatif kedua:
Untuk berkarya. Memangnya karyaNya mau diperlihatkan pada siapa? Pada malaikat? Kalau benar begitu, berarti kita hanya mainannya Tuhan, dan Tuhan tidak mempedulikan kita, tidak menyayangi kita, dan hanya pura-pura sayang sama ciptaanNya. Dan masih ada pertanyaan lain yang muncul, yaitu kenapa Tuhan harus berkarya? Apakah dia bosan dan butuh melakukan hal tersebut untuk memuaskan mentalnya? Berarti Tuhan juga masih punya keperluan dengan manusia. Tuhan membutuhkan manusia untuk menyembah Dia. Berarti manusia hanya sekedar alat pemuas kebutuhan dan pelarian dari rasa bosan.

Saya tidak menerima kedua kesimpulan tadi, jadi jawaban lain yang saya punya adalah:
Tuhan itu menciptakan manusia karena kesepian.  Dan Dia tidak tahan, jadi Dia menciptakan manusia untuk dimainkan. Yah...walaupun sebenarnya Dia sudah tahu semua hasil akhirnya. Dan Tuhanpun sebenarnya sudah tahu kapan Dia akan berbicara atau bergerak, karena Dia Maha Tahu.



7.....

Kenapa titik-titik? Karena pada hari ke-tujuh Tuhan beristirahat. Jadi ya udah, saya istirahat juga! Haah... Mau mandi dulu! Hahahaha....


maaf kalo ada yang tidak setuju. Tapi ini hanya pertanyaan dan bukan tuduhan tanpa dasar. Jadi kalau saya salah, coba dikasih saya jawaban benarnya. Jadi saya tidak salah mikir lagi.

Wakakaka.

Perasaan gue

Gw ga tau ya apa yang gw rasa, namanya apa! Rasanya pengen garuk-garuk kedalaman laut sampai laut itu jadi besi! Gimana caranya? Haruskah gw meloncat dari gedung berlantai 15 yang tidak ingin termutasi lenggukan awan? Hahaha

Mari kita tertawa, karena permainan ini sangatlah lucu.

Gw mau ngarang cerita tapi ga tau kenapa sekarang kayaknya ga bisa ya! Pikiran gw ga bisa berpola ngatur! Jadi gw tulis seadanya aja yang di pikiran gw..

Astagfirullahaladzim, aku menemukan video rekaman ini di bawah meja Nesto. Entah sejak kapan dia meremukkan kamera orang lain. Aku tidak pernah dia akan berbuat senekad ini. Apakah dia tahu bahwa itu berharga sangat murah? Karena aku ingin makan apa adanya, jadi tidak ada lagi yang ingin dibicarakan. Apa lagi?

Semua yang mereka tahu hanyalah mengeluh dan mengeluh. Aku tidak tahu lagi bagaimana menyadarkan mereka. Apakah harus kutampeleng? Atau aku buang mereka ke onggokan sampah di teliteran traktor? Bagaimana harus menjadi pecahan kaca yang tak ternilai harganya kalau dia saja tidak pernah mau tahu apa yang orang lain rasakan. Sakit rasanya. Tapi tidak tahu apa ungkapannya.

Jika bau, mandilah. Jika jelek, dandanlah. Jika sakit, istirahatlah. Jika pusing, dengarlah musik. Jika lapar, makan saja aku? Bahkan sumpatan di area penggalian perpustakaan kota juga tidak ada yang tahu berapa banyak hosti kudus yang harus dimakan. Yesus Kristus. Atau Nabi Isa? Dasar anak tolol gila! Memang pantasnya dihajar! Apalah artinya rumah? Jika isinya jalanan. Kampanye tidak cukup untuk menyadarkan satu-satunya kesadaran yang tidak terlupakan di malam hari berbulan bintang itu. Bukan agama Islam memang.

Sekilas pernah aku berharap untuk jadi muslim. Tapi apalah gunanya? Pikiranku sudah ateis. Mungkin lebih enak jadi Islam saja dan tidak mengerti apa-apa, hanya menjalani hukum Tuhan dan berpikir akan mendapatkan surga. Peduli setanlah yang lain mau masuk neraka. Tapi tidak apa-apa, selama aku hidup! Aku tahu aku memang tidak ada sedikit bergunanya. Tapi aku tidak ingin orang lain jadi pasir. Aku ingin jadi batu. Batu apung yang terapung di laut. Tetapi tahukah, di dalam lautan yang dalam ada segumpal emas yang Sotmillok sembunyikan di sana?

Kita melihat-lihat lautan luas seperti melihat udara saja. Aku tidak tahu mengapa penting untuk mengajar orang lain untuk memahami sesuatu. Aku tidak tahu! Biarkan saja aku mengulang-ngulang perkataanku! Ini adalah takdir Tuhan. Saranghaeyo! I love you! Jujujujujujuju....

Kita hanyalah manusia. Aku sadar itu. Betapa kuatpun kita menampung segala emosi yang bergejolak itu, tetapi lama-lama pecah juga. Aku tidak ingin pecah nanti. Aku ingin sekarang saja. Apa yang akan terjadi? Udara bertiup dari selatan ke timur, tanpa melalui pandangan di kulit mataku. Kemarin, saat melihat ikan besar di atas meja (ikan yang sangat besar), saat itu aku lagi sedang ingin makan ikan. Tetapi saat melihat wajah ikan yang besar itu, entah kenapa hilang nafsuku untuk memakannya. Tubuhnya yang terbelah dua membuatku tidak sanggup menengguk dagingnya. Karena aku juga punya daging. Rasanya seolah-olah ikan itu punya perasaan dan dia dibunuh sementara keluarganya mencarinya ke mana-mana. Segera saja aku tidak jadi memakannya. Tetapi aku masih suka perkedel kentang.

Aku ingin sekali mati malam ini. Atau aku ingin membunuh seseorang. Aku tidak bisa terus hidup begini. Hidup yang membosankan. Aku harus mencari sensasi. Walau dengan bunuh diri. Mungkin setelah bunuh diri betulan ada neraka! Aku takut! Tapi aku tetap saja mau mati. Aku tidak peduli! Tuhan pasti sangat jahat sampai dia memasukkan aku ke neraka. Apakah dia tidak mengerti aku ini dilanda kebingungan, kebingungan yang sangat, tetapi kenapa saat ini dia masih juga belum memunculkan tulisan "PERCAYALAH TUHAN ITU ADA, INILAH TANDANYA" di dalam bak mandi ketika aku sedang mandi? Hah!! Aku jadi tidak percaya lagi padanya. Tidak bisa. Dia tidak memperdulikan manusia ini.

Jadi aku juga tidak peduli dia. Aku ingin sekali orang mengerti apa yang kupikirkan. Orang bodoh itu ingin sekali kubunuh! Sial! Kenapa orang gila harus ada di dunia ini! Kenapa orang yang emosian ada di dunia ini?! Tolol! Pokoknya malam ini aku harus mati! Tidak peduli apa kata dunia! Hahaha! Pokoknya ini sudah matang! Aku tidak mau lagi memikirkan bagaimana sakitnya motong nadi! Biar saja nanti baru kurasakan... Ini supaya aku tidak ragu-ragu lagi. Pemaksa! Itulah aku dulu saat kecil.

Bodohnya saya hidup dengan sangat enak di sini. Ingin melakukan apa-apa, ingin menjerumuskan diri sendiri dalam kemautan, juga tidak apa-apa. Mungkin. Tapi mudah-mudahan iya. Aku ini hanyalah sesosok manusia, hanya satu! Setidaknya menurut apa yang selama ini aku lihat. Tapi secara pemikiran, mungkin aku bukanlah manusia, aku hanyalah sepersatutriliun debu yang ga sengaja punya kesadaran dan bermimpi hidup di dunia! Mimpi punya otak, mimpi punya pelajaran biologi dan fisika kuantum, padahal ternyata hanyalah onggokan debu yang tidak punya apa-apa selain kesadaran yang membentuk pelajaran-pelajaran macam itu : fisikalah, bahasa, atau biologi. Padahal omong kosong. Atau mungkin ini memang hanyalah mimpi? Aku yang sebenarnya sedang tidur? Oke, sampai saat ini aku belum berhasil mimpi sadar. Hanya sekali, tanpa sengaja, dan aku belum tahu apa-apa kala itu. Pernah satu kali, hampir. Saat itu aku di dalam mimpi sedang memandang kepada cermin di pintu. Hampir saja aku sadar, aku sedang bermimpi. tapi aku terbangun! Sial sekali!

Apa lagi yang harus kutulis? Tidak tahu. Aku lapar! Mau makan lagi!Habis itu berak, makan, berak, makan, tidur, mati! Hehehe.

Hohoho.

Hahaha.

Hihihi.

Hiu hiu hiu! Paus paus paus!

Awan Kumuh

Entah kenapa gw jadi males banget buat nulis...

John Lennon

Anda mungkin sudah tahu John Lennon itu siapa. Dia adalah pemimpin band The Beatles, penyanyi, pencipta lagu, instrumentalis, penulis dan aktivis politik yang terkenal di seluruh dunia. Yang belum tahu, coba baca-baca ini dulu...

John Lennon adalah seorang musikus rock Inggris yang memperoleh perhatian dunia sebagai salah seorang pendiri The Beatles, untuk karir solonya, dan aktivisme politiknya. Ia ditembak empat kali (tembakan kelima meleset) oleh Mark David Chapman di lorong pintu masuk bangunan dimana ia menetap, The Dakota, tanggal 8 Desember 1980; Lennon baru saja kembali dari Record Plant Studio dengan istrinya, Yoko Ono.

Lennon diumumkan meninggal di kedatangan di St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, dimana telah dinyatakan bahwa tak seorangpun yang dapat hidup lebih lama setelah mengalami peristiwa seperti itu. Meskipun Lennon tiba di rumah sakit tanpa detak jantung, tim dokter berusaha menyelamatkan nyawanya menggunakan berbagai prosedur medis. Transfusi darah juga pemijatan jantung juga diusahakan untuk menyelamatkan jiwanya. Setelah stasiun berita lokal melaporkan kematian Lennon, ramai orang berkumpul di Roosevelt Hospital dan di depan The Dakota. Kremasi Lennon dilakukan tanggal 10 DEsember 1980, di Ferncliff Cemetery di Hartsdale, New York; debunya diberikan pada Ono, yang memutuskan untuk tidak mengadakan penguburan kepadanya.

Tahun 2000, John Lennon Museum dibuka di Saitama Super Arena di Saitama, Saitama, Jepang, dan dua hari kemudian Liverpool mengubah nama bandar udaranya menjadi Bandar Udara John Lennon Liverpool, dan mengambil motto "Above us only sky". Tanggal 9 Oktober 2007, yang merupakan ulang tahun Lennon ke-67, Ono memutuskan untuk membuat tugu peringatan bernama Imagine Peace Tower, terletak di pulau Videy, Islandia. Setiap tahun, antara 9 Oktober dan 8 Desember, tugu ini menyalakan sinar lampu lurus ke langit.

Ini adalah salah satu lagu yang dinyanyilan oleh John Lennon...


IMAGINE - John Lennon


Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No Hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...


Imagine there's no country
It isn't hard to do...
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too...
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...


You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us...
And the world will live as one

Imagine no possessions...
I wonder if you can...
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...


You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us...
And the world will live as one.


John Lennon sudah meninggal karena dibunuh oleh seorang fanatik psikopat dan gila serta tolol yang bernama Mark David Chapman dengan tembakan pistol empat kali. Psikopat ini dulunya adalah penggemar The Beatles, tapi setelah dia jadi Kristen fundamentalis, dia jadi berubah sikap membenci karya-karya John Lennon. Pada saat Lennon meluncurkan lagunya yang berjudul "Imagine", lagu tersebut mendapat banyak penolakan. Sampai pada suatu hari Chapman datang ke rumah Lennon dan meminta tanda tangan Lennon. Lalu Lennon meninggalkannya sebenatar. Tahu-tahu waktu Lennon kembali, Chapman sudah megang pistol dan Duar Duar Duar! Lennon ditembak dan mati dalam perjalanan ke rumah sakit. Dan Chapman ini rupanya betul-betul seorang psikopat yang dengan santainya setelah pembunuhan itu menunggu polisi datang sambil baca-baca buku. Setelah di pengadilan ditanya kenapa melakukan pembunuhan tersebut, apa jawabannya? Dia ternyata disuruh oleh:

TUHAN a.k.a GOD a.k.a ALLAH!

Itulah pengaruh agama. Membuat orang menjadi gila! Kayak gw, gila-gila karena pusing mikirin Tuhan! Tapi ada yang lebih aneh dari kisahnya Lennon. Setelah dia dibunuh, ada seorang aktor bernama Mark Lindsay Chapman yang hampir memerankan John Lennon di sebuah film. Tapi pembuatan film tersebut dibatalkan lantaran nama aktor tersebut sangat mirip dengan Mark David Chapman, pembunuh John Lennon. Kok bisa mirip segitu ya! Kebetulan kah? Atau jangan-jangan ada rahasia khusus antara mereka berdua! Misalnya David Chapman itu sebenarnya adalah sodaranya Lindsay Chapman tapi disembunyikan dari publik... Entahlah, hanya Tuhan yang tahu! Tapi Tuhan itu tidak ada, jadi tidak ada yang tahu... Eh salah, ternyata Tuhan itu ada. Saya lupa kemaren saya sudah gambar cowok dan cewek yang namanya Tuhan! Jadi Tuhan itu ada....

Setelah kejadian itu, kejadian yang sama terjadi pada salah satu mantan anggota The Beatles lainnya, George Harrison. Michael Abram menyerobot masuk ke dalam rumahnya dan menusuk George denga pisau. Untungnya Olivia, istrinya, melempari Abram dengan lampu dan menjepitnya sampai polisi datang dan George berhasil diselamatkan.

Yang mau donlot lagunya master legendaris kita (atau saya), John Lennon, Imagine, klik di sini.

Terima kasih Tuhan atas pertolonganmu kepada umat manusia dengan cara menciptakannya lalu mematikannya, setelah itu sebagian kecil masuk surga dan kebanyakan yang mayoritas masuk neraka. Seperti mungkin John Lennon, sekarang sedang di neraka. Dan saya nanti menyusul. Tapi saya tidak percaya Kau itu ada. Jadi saya tidak akan berhalusinasi berada di Neraka saat saya mati nanti seperti yang Kau lakukan pada ciptaanMu yang lain. Oh iya, saya lupa, Kau itu ada! Kemarin saya menciptakanmu dalam gambar dua orang cowok dan cewek, itulah Kau, Tuhan yang telah menciptakan saya....

BLESSED - Fady Maalouf

Waktu itu gw pernah denger ini lagu di youtube, ga sengaja... Gw cari-cari judulnya akhirnya dapet! Saya sangat suka lagu ini... Dengerin yo!

fady blessed mp3 | lyrics

free music downloads | music videos | pictures

BLESSED
Vocal by: Fady Maalouf

Long before you came,
I knew..
Somehow life would bring me you...
Long before you spoke my name...
I believe you knew:
I missed you...


I love you more than words can say!
I love you there's no other way!


For the first time in my life
I am someone great!
For the first time i come home
I have found my fate...!
I believe it when i see you smile...
That i'm blessed
I'm blessed
I am...
I'm truly blessed!


I believe it when i see you smile
That i'm blessed
I'm blessed
I am...


For all the nights to come all days...
You'll be inside my heart...
Always!


For the first time in my life
I am someone great.
For the first time i've come home
I have found my fate...!
I believe it when i see you smile...
That i'm blessed,
I'm blessed
I am...!


I am someone great.
For the first time I've come home
I have found my fate!
I believe it when i see you smile...


That i'm blessed,
I'm blessed
I am...
I'm truly blessed.






BLESSED
dipopulerkan oleh: Fady Maalouf



Jauh sebelum kau datang
Aku tahu...
Entah bagaimana hidup 'kan bawakanku dirimu...
Jauh sebelum kau memanggil namaku
Aku yakin kau mengetahui
Aku merindukanmu...


Aku mencintaimu lebih dari yang bisa diungkapkan kata-kata!
Aku mencintaimu, tiada jalan lain!


Untuk pertama kalinya dalam hidupku
Aku merasa hebat!
Untuk pertama kalinya aku telah pulang!
Aku telah menemukan takdirku...
Aku percaya itu saat melihat kau tersenyum...
Bahwa aku beruntung
Aku beruntung
Ya...
Aku benar-benar beruntung!


Aku percaya itu saat melihatmu tersenyum...
Bahwa aku beruntung
Aku beruntung
Ya...!


Untuk malam-malam yang akan datang setiap hari... 
Dirimu akan berada dalam hatiku...
Selalu!


Untuk pertama kalinya dalam hidupku
Aku merasa hebat!
Untuk pertama kalinya aku telah pulang...
Aku telah menemukan takdirku!
Aku percaya itu saat melihatmu tersenyum...
Bahwa aku beruntung
Aku beruntung
Ya!


Aku merasa hebat!
Untuk pertama kalinya aku telah pulang...
Aku telah menemukan takdirku!
Aku percaya itu saat melihatmu tersenyum...
Bahwa aku beruntung
Aku beruntung
Ya,
Aku memang beruntung....

Are We All Just Computer Simulations?

Kita semua tahu bahwa kita hidup di dunia ini semenjak kita dilahirkan oleh orangtua kita sendiri. Dari janin, kita menjadi seorang bayi kecil, bayi yang tidak tahu apa-apa. Dan kita mengklaim bahwa kita sekarang telah bertumbuh besar. Tapi kita tidak pernah mengingat apakah kita pernah berada di dalam janin? Apakah Anda pernah melihat bahwa dunia ini ada sebelum Anda sendiri menyadari keberadaan Anda? Apakah Anda yakin bahwa dunia ini memang sudah ada sebelum Anda ada di dunia ini? Kenapa kita semua bisa sampai mempercayai semua hal yang dikatakan oleh orang lain? Kenapa kita percaya bahwa ibu kitalah yang melahirkan kita? Padahal kita tidak ingat pernah mengalaminya. Bukti kelahiran kita ada di rumah sakit. Dan sekarang Anda bisa percaya bahwa Anda memang dilahirkan oleh ibu Anda? Kenapa Anda yakin bahwa kalau bukti kelahiran Anda ditunjukkan berarti Anda memang pernah dilahirkan oleh Ibu Anda? Coba pikirkanlah. Kenapa bisa kita percaya pada bukti? Kenapa manusia membutuhkan bukti untuk percaya? Dan kenapa manusia harus percaya?

Saya tidak menyarankan Anda untuk menanyakan kepada Ibu Anda apakah Anda anak kandungnya atau bukan. Sekarang kita anggaplah "Tuhan" itu ada. Dia menciptakan kita di dunia ini karena suatu keperluan-Nya dan mungkin untuk kepentingan kita juga (atau tidak). Dia menciptakan suatu hukum alam untuk kita. Dia mengatur bagaimana kita ini harus berpikir dan mempercayai sesuatu. Tuhan membuat suatu sejarah sebelum kelahiran kita. Dan untuk sementara kita sendirian di dunia ini. Mungkin dia mempunyai semacam alat penghubung yang saya harus sadari keberadaannya untuk bisa berkomunikasi dengan Tuhan. Mungkin konsep Roh Kudus itu ada benarnya? Alat komunikasi yang disebut Roh Kudus itu yang menjadi pengenal pada sesuatu yang benar atau salah dan sesuatu yang dapat dipercayai atau tidak. Jika Anda adalah seorang Kristiani, Anda tidak perlu menganggap ini serius, karena saya juga tidak meminta Ada untuk memercayainya.  Karena saya sendiri juga masih belum tahu. Yang saya tulis ini bukanlah sains atau teknologi. Konsep ini hanya sampai pada batasan filofofi (untuk saat ini, kalau untuk ke depannya saya kurang tahu!).

Beberapa hari yang lalu, saya mengamati sesuatu yang mungkin bagi orang lain tidaklah penting. Saya menggerakkan pensil saya ke kanan dan ke kiri sekencang mungkin. Dan yang saya tahu, yang saya lihat adalah beberapa klise yang muncul bersamaan setiap sepersekiandetiknya. Mata saya melihatnya seperti sebuah sebuah kamera video yang hanya menangkap beberapa frame per sepersepuluhsekonnya. Saya jadi berpikir jangan-jangan alam ini hanyalah sebuah simulasi komputer super yang dikendalikan oleh Tuhan di luar sana! Selama ini saya tertipu oleh stimulus yang diciptakan oleh super program ini? Sekarang saya mengulang mempraktekkan gerakan cepat itu lagi. Dan hal yang sama ternyata masih terus berlangsung di hadapan mata saya!

Tentu saja sains bisa menjelaskan semua itu. Pasti saintis akan menjelaskan kecepatan mata manusia untuk menerima gambar per detiknya memang sudah begitu. Tapi kenapa bisa begitu? Tapi, kenapa yang ada pada sains berbeda dengan kenapa yang ada di dalam otak saya. Dan saya tahu ini akan menjadi tidak nyambung! Karena itu para fisikawan atau saintis biarlah menjelaskan itu semua pada orang lain, supaya saya tidak dianggap menyesatkan karena saya hanya mencoba mengutarakan apa yang ada di dalam benak saya ini. Orang yang skeptis mungkin tidak akan percaya ini, dan mempercayai ini juga tidak akan ada gunanya selain hanya untuk menjawab sesuatu yang mungkin akan menimbulkan ribuan pertanyaan kuno ataupun modern di dalamnya... Dan saya tidak ingin masuk ke dalam ranah kepercayaan agama untuk mengubah segala pertanyaan menjadi jawaban yang sudah tidak bisa dipertanyakan lagi. Dan saya memiliki kepercayaan tersendiri bahwa di dunia ini, setiap bitnya memiliki pertanyaan yang sudah belum siap untuk dijawab sampai ada orang yang memerhatikannya.

Sekarang coba kita kembali kepada permasalahan tipuan pengalaman kita selama ini. Penimbulan persepsi yang keliru mengenai alam ini. Kita menganggap materi itu memang adalah materi dan energi itu yang menggerakkan energi (mungkin saya salah teori fisikanya? Maaf!). Padahal semua ini hanyalah sinyal listrik yang berasal dari sebuah energi yang bersumber dari prosesor timidnya Tuhan (maaf lagi kepada master komputernya, kalo saya salah. Karena saya bukan ahli dalam hal teknologi dan saya susah mengingat nama-nama perangkat keras dan lunaknya.). Dan saat kita tidur mungkin ada dua kemungkinan:

-Saya adalah makhluk yang berasal dari dunia sana juga. Saat tidur di bumi, kesadaran saya kembali kepada tubuh saya yang asli dan saya beraktivitas di dunia sana dengan kawan dan Tuhan itu. Dan saat saya kembali ke bumi, saya terbangun dan karena beberapa perbedaan keadaan di dunia luar sana (sebut saja XYZ!) sebagian memori saya tidak bisa saya ingat dan yang bisa saya ingatpun tidak tertata dengan baik, dan itulah yang saya sebut dengan mimpi...

-Tuhan mematikan komputernya. Saya diantar lebih dulu ke tempat tidur (Perbandingannya seperti begini: Saat Anda bermain game dunia virtual 3D seperti The Sims, Anda membawa tubuh virtual Anda ke tempat tidur dan diri virtual Anda akan melakukan seperti yang diperintahkan. Kira-kira terlihat seperti itulah kita dalam pandangan Tuhan, hanya saja dia adalah makhluk yang berada pada dimensi ke 5 sedangkan kita adalah makhluk 4D! Jadi cara kita dipindahkan tidak seperti dalam game The Sims, tapi dengan cara Tuhan sendiri yang dunianya tidak akan pernah sampai di akal kita!), lalu saya di-shut-down-kan. Dan esoknya saya akan terbangun dengan catatan mimpi yang dibuat oleh Tuhan sehingga saya bisa mengingat bahwa tadi saya memimpikan sesuatu! (Padahal sebenarnya memori itu dipindahkan begitu saja ke dalam otak saya, tidak mengalami proses.) Dan dengan teori ini saya bingung menjelaskan masalah lucid dream! Hahaha....

Daripada saya capek-capek mengetik dan mencari mood menulis saya kembali (soalnya saya habis makan, dan mood nulis saya langsung hilang habis makan!), lebih baik kita simak gan artikel dari pactiss.org ini... Artikel ini isinya juga membahas tentang film The Matrix yang juga baru saya ketahui dari seorang teman saya... Dan sejak itu saya jadi punya ide yang gila sinting tentang alam semesta ini (contohnya di atas).

We are all just computer simulations

by Peter Ellerton — last modified May 28, 2008 06:31 AM

The matrix in real life (so to speak...). Good for philosophy of mind.

Life's a Simulation, Then You're Deleted

New Scientist vol 175 issue 2353 - 27 July 2002, page 48

No need to wait for Matrix 2 to come out. You could already be living in a giant computer simulation, says Michael Brooks
OF COURSE you thought The Matrix was fiction. But only because you were meant to. Do you think they're stupid enough to let us realise what's really going on?
It usually takes a conspiracy theorist to hatch such a far-fetched plot. But Nick Bostrom is a philosopher at Yale University, and he believes the Hollywood blockbuster is closer to the truth than many of us would care to believe. He's done the calculations, and he reckons that we could well be living inside a simulation.
That's right. Your life might actually be a computer program developed by a post-human society living in what you think of as the future.
In a paper submitted to the journal Mind, Bostrom has outlined exactly how he reached this chilling conclusion. The reasoning starts with one simple premise. At some point, civilisation will develop enormously powerful computers capable of mimicking what we call consciousness. And if that premise is true, the rest follows logically.
Outrageous? Not a bit of it. Look at it rationally. If it becomes technologically possible to mimic consciousness, the future can only pan out in one of three ways. First, some extinction event - maybe a powerful but deadly technology, maybe a natural disaster - will wipe us out before we actually do it. If that's true, then you can relax. What you're experiencing right now is real life.
The second scenario is also a comforting one: future humans won't be interested in running simulations. They might be too sophisticated to bother with such games, or there may be laws against it. But do either of those noble outcomes sound like a probable future of human civilisation to you? Thought not.
Which leaves us with the least palatable option: humans will one day simulate consciousness, and then go on to create simulated Universes for it to live in. If that's true then the chances are they've already done so, and you're living in one.
OK, it's just possible that you're part of the pre-simulation real world - what Bostrom calls the "original history". But given how many simulations there'll be, the probability of that is very slim. All things considered, Bostrom says, the probability that you're living in a simulation is "close to unity". "I think the argument is watertight," he says.
Any logical argument, of course, is only as good as its premises. But Bostrom has got that covered too. Imagine that we do indeed live in the "original history". How likely is it that we're on the trajectory leading to computers that can mimic consciousness?
According to Bostrom, very, very likely. All you need is to discover the particular type of computational processes that leads to what we call consciousness. "A computer running a suitable program would be conscious," Bostrom says. Roboticist Hans Moravec of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh has worked out that, whatever the "suitable program" turns out to be, emulating a mind would take about 1014 operations per second. That seems like a lot now - today's fastest computers struggle to get above 1012 operations per second - but we're heading in the right direction.
Big thinkers
As Bostrom points out, big thinkers such as Ray Kurzweil and Eric Drexler already argue that we haven't yet squeezed the full potential out of our existing computing resources. Today's nanotechnology would let us build a system the size of a sugar cube that would perform 1021 operations per second. And a computer with a mass equivalent to a large planet could do 1042 operations per second. We might even be building such systems by the end of the century. Even if we discount the possibility that new physics could lead to super-powerful methods of computing, our current technology is already leading us towards a mind-emulating future.
Once there's enough computing power to simulate consciousness, creating an environment for it to interact with will be child's play. For one thing, simulating an entire Universe down to the minutest level would be a waste of resources. You would only need to simulate to a degree where the universe's inhabitants didn't notice any irregularities (remember those "disturbances" in the matrix). So, for example, there'd be no point filling in every microscopic detail, or the minutiae of distant astronomical objects, until someone decided to look at them. Then the creators could fill in the necessary details on an ad hoc basis.
Obviously, the view has to be convincing, but there's no way the observer can know how these things ought to look or behave. It's quite likely a consciousness looking at odd features in the microscopic world of atoms and electrons would accept any bizarre irregularities at this level as "just the way things are".
If you've ever wrestled with the weird nature of quantum mechanics, alarm bells may just be starting to ring...
So what shall we do? Bostrom thinks we should keep calm and act normally; there's certainly no need to flip out. "Anyone who started to change their life because of this would be a mad loony," he says.
But Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, doesn't agree. He argues that you should alter your behaviour radically: if your life is just a computer simulation, you need to do everything possible to make sure you're not deleted.
First you need to work out the purpose of the simulation. If it's for entertainment then you'd better make sure you're part of the fun. What that means varies across cultures, so to be safe you should be funny, outrageous, violent, sexy, strange, pathetic and heroic all at once - "in a word 'dramatic'," Hanson says.
If the simulation is for the creator to participate in, then they're probably going to want to rub shoulders with the rich and famous, or even play a famous person. So you'd better be the life and soul of the party, and - most important of all - suck up to celebrities. But if the simulation is for the creator to play God, punishing and rewarding minions' behaviour, you'll do well to live a blameless life instead.
And one more thing: don't be tempted to breathe a word about this to anyone. Hanson says that if everyone knows they're in a simulation, the whole thing will start to look stilted and staged, and the creator is likely to pull the plug. Keep it to yourself, or tell only a few close friends. Then you can get on with finding a purpose to your so-called lives: escaping.
Entertaining though it might be, Bostrom thinks Hanson's advice is useless because it's almost impossible to work out what our world is for. "We don't have any direct access to how the simulators set it up," he says. "The least misleading advice would be to get on with your business as you would have done before."
He even thinks it would be OK for everyone to know what's going on. "Presumably in the original history there were people who had these crazy ideas," he says. "If you were trying to run as realistic simulation as you could, you wouldn't want to ban that."
Maybe he's right. After all, millions of us sat through The Matrix without them pulling the plug on us. And nobody panicked at the idea that the Earth was a simulation created by a future civilisation intent on tapping our bodies for energy. But what did Bostrom think when the film came out? Was he impressed by its veracity? Not really. "Using humans as an energy source is ridiculously implausible," he says. "But that's Hollywood for you."