Alternative Culture: Pacific Rim Review

Recently, I caught the movie Pacific Rim with my colleagues. Justifying my initial scepticism, I found it to be a mediocre action film, saved only by its cutting-edge graphics.

Synopsis
In the fictional near future, giant sea monsters known as Kaiju emerge from an interdimensional portal in the Pacific Ocean. Conventional weapons such as jets and tanks proved useless against the Kaiju, so the world decided to build giant robots known as Jaegers to combat the Kaiju.

The operating system of the Jaegers proved to be too complex, and required a two-men team to operate. When the Kaiju start to adapt to the battle tactics of the Jaeger pilots, the world turns to former pilot Raleigh (played by Charlie Hunnam) and personal assistant Mako (played by Rinko Kikuchi) to save the day.

What I didn't like about the film
There are many things I take issue with the film.

The science in the film. Let's assume it is biologically possible for the Kaiju to exist (despite the weight of their body structure being too heavy for earthly conditions). Why would the perfect plan be to create an equivalent robot counterpart? The joints are structurally weaknesses and bipedalism provides an unstable support.

The battle tactics also were appalling. Why did they use a cargo ship as a weapon when the Jaeger's fists were made of much harder titanium? Why did they use the fists at all when they had swords? At one point of the film, they activated a nuke, endangering the other Jaeger in the vicinity (nearby nuclear explosions can shut down electronic equipment).

Theological review
However, I guess you can read the reviews elsewhere. I want to explore an interesting concept by the film-- the idea of the pilots melding their minds in order to operate their Jaeger with one will.

I guess it parallels the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit unifying believers together (Ephesians 4:3), for good works (1 Corinthians 12:7). Unlike the movie, we do not guide the Spirit, but the Spirit guides us (Romans 8:26-27).

Conclusion
I give this movie a 54/100. It has nice visuals, but has a predictable story-line and weak cast.

Theology 1.0: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Editor's note: I am not a philosophy student. I am simply a science teacher trying to make sense of the world. So this is my opinion and analysis of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Thus please do not take this post as authoritative.]

Sunset at East Coast Park, Singapore, December 2012

One of the famous arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. In this post I will be focusing on the Kalam Cosmological Argument as advocated by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The premises
The argument is as follows:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (Craig, 1994)

Many historical religious thinkers (such as Thomas Aquinas and Al-Kindi) have used this argument (or at least variants of this) to argue that God exists. In other words, the cause of the universe must be God.

Craig (1994) argues that the first two premises are intuitively true, (and therefore the third premise is true), and the onus is on the opposition to provide evidence arguing against.

Objections
Who caused God?
Some opponents that argue that the claim is self-refuting-- if God exists, then who/what caused God? However, note the wording of the premises-- it is not that anything that exists has a cause, but anything that began to exists has one.

In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God has always existed (i.e. has no beginning), therefore God does not have or require a cause.

Infinite regress
Some opponents argue that it is possible that an infinite series of events, rather than God caused the universe to begin. Iqbal (1986) argues that to elevate one of those infinite events to "First Cause" status is unnecessarily discriminating.

Nevertheless, Martin (1997) refuted the reality of actual infinities, stating that infinity only exists as abstract concept in mathematics and has no place in the real world. He further added that proposing a series of infinite events only pushes the idea of First Cause a step back and is merely a distraction.

The universe did not begin to exist
Other opponents attempt to challenge premise 2-- the idea that the universe began to exist. McTaggart (1908) proposed that there could a B-theory of time, in which that the universe is four dimensional (with the fourth dimension as time) and the universe is always in existence (for ideas of past, present and future are limitations of human consciousness).

Craig and Moreland (2009) accepts that the Kalam Cosmological Argument relies on the A-theory of time (the conventional view of time), but the B-theory of time would beg another question-- why is there something, rather than nothing?

Conclusion
Regardless of what we think of the cosmological argument, all of us should think about the question of existence. Why are we here, and what are we here for?

References
Craig, WL (1994) Reasonable Faith

Craig, WL and Moreland, J.P. (2009) The Blackwell Companion of Natural Theology

Iqbal, M. (1986) The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam Lahore

Martin, Christopher (1997) Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations

McTaggart, J.M.E. (1908) The Unreality of Time. Mind, 17, 453

A video summary: Documentary