God, Faith, and the Infinite: Ten Questions About Belief

 

God, Faith, and the Infinite: Ten Questions About Belief

When people talk about God, heaven, and miracles, they are also asking what it means to be good, free, and human. These ten questions explore how faith and reason sometimes clash—and sometimes complete each other.

1. Can God make a stone so heavy that even God cannot lift it?

This is the “omnipotence paradox.” If God can, then there is something God cannot do (lift it); if God cannot, then again God cannot do something, so the idea of “do anything” may be logically broken.​

2. If God is all-good, why do cancer and natural disasters exist?

This is the problem of evil, or theodicy. Some say suffering exists to preserve free will or to shape virtues like courage and compassion, though no answer fully removes the tension.​

3. If you die and discover there is no God, would you regret following religious rules?

This echoes Pascal’s Wager: believing “just in case” treats goodness as risk management, not sincere faith. It asks whether doing good out of fear is truly moral.​

4. If hell is eternal torture, isn’t that too much for any limited sin?

Finite actions facing infinite punishment seem unfair. Some argue hell is not “active torture” but the natural result of choosing to separate yourself from God forever.

5. If God ordered you to kill an innocent child, should you obey God or your conscience?

Kierkegaard called this a “leap of faith,” where belief can conflict with ethics. But if conscience also comes from God, the command feels like a cruel logical trap.​

6. If a robot starts praying and claims to feel God, does it have a soul?

If a soul is defined by inner experience, we cannot disprove it. If it is a special gift from God only to living beings, then no—no matter how sincere the robot appears.​

7. If prayer can change God’s will, is God’s plan still perfect?

If God’s plan changes, it seems imperfect; if it never changes, prayer might be only for our hearts, not for altering the universe. This question presses on what prayer is really for.

8. If aliens exist and their scriptures never mention Jesus or the Buddha, who is right?

This highlights the cultural limits of religion: if truth is universal, it should reach beyond one planet, language, or history.​

9. Science can explain the Big Bang, but who explains why there is “something” instead of “nothing”?

This is a deep metaphysical question. Science describes how things happen; the question of why anything exists at all may always belong to philosophy or theology.

10. If eternal life meant sitting on clouds singing forever, how is that different from hell?

Any single experience, repeated endlessly, can turn from joy to boredom. Perhaps real paradise would need change, growth, and genuine freedom—not just endless repetition.

Faith, in the end, is less about having all the answers and more about how you live with questions you can never fully settle.​

誰說了算？關於權力與社會的十個問題

 

誰說了算？關於權力與社會的十個問題

在社會裡，什麼叫「合理」？是多數決、法律條文，還是某些更高的道德原則？以下十個問題，帶你思考權力與公平的拉鋸。

1. 如果 99% 投票沒收 1% 的財產，這算民主嗎？

這是「多數暴政」：真正的民主必須同時保障少數人的基本權利，否則只是披著合法外衣的掠奪。

2. 省下一杯拿鐵就能救遠方飢餓孩童，不捐錢算不算間接殺人？

彼得・辛格指出，當你能輕易阻止嚴重傷害卻選擇不做時，你在道德上已犯下「不作為的惡」。

3. 若為了絕對安全而放棄隱私、接受全天候監控，你願意嗎？

隱私是自由的土壤。沒有隱私，人會因害怕被審判而不敢犯錯，也無法發展獨特的自己。

4. 為什麼我們必須遵守在我們出生前就制定好的法律？

社會契約論說：只要你使用社會資源（道路、警察、醫療），就等於默許了維持這些體系的規則。

5. 如果獨裁者讓全國人民極度富裕又快樂，他還算邪惡嗎？

功利主義可能說「他帶來高幸福」，但重視義務與權利的人會說：剝奪公民的政治參與與自由，本身就是深層的傷害。

6. 遺產稅若是 100%，人人起跑點最公平，你會支持嗎？

這在財產權與社會正義間拉扯。完全抹平起跑點，可能也抹去父母為孩子努力打拚的動力。

7. 按一下按鈕就能讓一個隨機陌生人消失，換取一百萬，你會按嗎？

這測試你是否承認人命有「不可標價」的絕對價值，即使那個人離你很遠、你永遠不會認識。

8. 若科技能強制洗腦罪犯成為「好人」，這算人道嗎？

如同《發條橘子》的反思：一個失去作惡自由的人，即使不再犯罪，他的「善」也失去了道德光輝。

9. 為何國家可以徵召你上戰場送死，卻不能逼你捐出一顆腎？

這顯示集體主義的矛盾：我們接受為「國家存亡」犧牲生命，卻無法接受國家對個人身體做細部支配。

10. 若世界政府能消除戰爭，但代價是抹除所有文化差異，值得嗎？

文化差異既是衝突來源，也是文明厚度。一個完全一致的世界，也許只是一座「和平但空洞的墳場」。

權力與社會的核心，始終是在安全、自由與公平之間，艱難地尋找一條不完全滿意、卻勉強可以接受的路。

Power, Rules, and Fairness: Ten Questions About Society

 

Power, Rules, and Fairness: Ten Questions About Society

Who decides what is fair in a society—majority votes, moral principles, or those who hold power? These ten questions explore how democracy, responsibility, and freedom can collide.

1. If 99% vote to seize the remaining 1%’s wealth, is that democracy?

That’s the “tyranny of the majority”: real democracy must also protect minority rights, or it becomes legal robbery.

2. If skipping your latte could save a starving child far away, is not donating like killing?

Peter Singer argues that failing to prevent suffering when you easily could is a kind of moral wrongdoing, even if the law says nothing.

3. Would you accept total surveillance and no privacy in exchange for perfect safety?

Privacy is the soil of freedom, allowing people to make mistakes and explore who they are without constant judgment. A completely monitored society might be safe—but not truly free.

4. Why must we obey laws made before we were born?

Social contract theory says that by using public goods like roads and security, you implicitly accept the rules that sustain them, even if you never “signed” anything.

5. If a dictator makes everyone rich and happy, is he still evil?

A utilitarian might focus on overall happiness, but others argue that taking away political freedom and participation is itself a serious harm, no matter the comfort.

6. Would a 100% inheritance tax be fair because it equalizes everyone’s starting line?

It balances property rights against social justice. Perfect equality of starting points might destroy parents’ motivation to work hard for their children.

7. If pressing a button would erase a random stranger and give you a million dollars, would you press it?

This tests whether you treat human life as having an absolute value that money cannot buy, even when the victim is distant and unknown.

8. If technology could brainwash criminals into “good people,” would that be humane?

Like in A Clockwork Orange, goodness without choice loses moral meaning; forced virtue may protect society but dehumanizes the person.

9. Why can the state draft you to die in war but not force you to donate a kidney?

This exposes a tension in collectivism: we accept huge sacrifices for “national survival,” yet fiercely guard bodily autonomy in everyday life.

10. If a world government could end war by erasing all cultural differences, would it be worth it?

Cultural diversity causes conflict but also gives humanity depth and richness; a perfectly uniform world might be peaceful—but spiritually empty.

Power and society always involve trade-offs between safety, freedom, equality, and dignity—and there is no easy formula to balance them.

藝術為何動人？關於藝術與美感的十個問題

 

藝術為何動人？關於藝術與美感的十個問題

為什麼有些作品讓人起雞皮疙瘩，有些卻像「垃圾」？藝術與美感，不只關於技術，更關於意圖、脈絡，以及我們觀看時的感受。

1. 如果大猩猩亂塗鴉畫出驚世傑作，這算藝術嗎？

若藝術必須有創作者的意圖，那它不是；若藝術在於觀眾的感動，那它絕對是。

2. 一幅完美偽畫與真跡一模一樣，為何價值差一千倍？

因為人們買的不只是「好看」，還有背後的歷史與創作者的生命故事。故事拉高了價值。

3. 若某件藝術品必須殺死一隻動物才能完成，它還美嗎？

這觸及藝術與道德的界線。許多人會認為道德瑕疵會抵銷美感，藝術不應凌駕生命。

4. 為什麼垃圾桶放進美術館就變成藝術品？

這是杜象式挑戰：藝術不再只是「技術展示」，而是「誰宣稱它是藝術」以及「被放在哪個框架裡」。

5. 如果 AI 寫出的流行歌比人類更好聽，音樂家會失業嗎？

商業曲風可能被取代，但作為情感故事與人味連結的音樂仍需要人。聽眾渴望的，是人自己的故事。

6. 美是客觀存在，還是情人眼裡出西施？

美感部分來自生物傾向（如對稱），更多來自文化與個人經驗。美是主觀與客觀交織的結果。

7. 若天才畫家的作品要到他死後才被發現，那他生前的畫算藝術嗎？

藝術的本質不因觀眾多寡而改變，但社會上的價值與影響，需要被發現與傳播才能實現。

8. 我們該因為作者品格卑劣（例如犯重罪），而抵制他的偉大作品嗎？

這取決於你能否把「人」與「作品」切開。若你相信作品是心靈投影，要分開就很困難。

9. 若未來每個人都能靠晶片畫出大師級作品，藝術還珍貴嗎？

當技術變得廉價時，真正稀有的將是獨特的想法與觀點。

10. 荒島上最後一個人畫完一幅畫後就死了，那幅畫有價值嗎？

若價值必須被別人評價，那它沒有；若價值存在於創作的行動本身，那它已經是永恆。

藝術最終不只是「看見什麼」，而是「你用什麼眼光去看」，以及你選擇讓哪些意義留在心裡。