A Poem To Summarize Who I Am

(This is a simple poem I made and used to have as content in the "personal bio" part of my social network accounts.)

The boy, though with a knight’s heart, is a gunslinger
Beyond the laughter, not many can see the cold eyes
A six-shooter or a six-string, it does not matter
Both are weapons, as well as the pen of a writer
On knock downs, he'll hear invisible cheers then he'll rise
Never governed by the Laws of Odds, he rolls the dice

The boy, calm and cool as ice, patiently makes his stand
Life is Mexican stand-offs and showdowns and marvels
He aims well and true; a blur when he draws with his hand
Long adventures through the worlds of Oz and Wonderland
His destination is Home; with a smile, he travels
Should he be tempted by the diamonds and jewels?

The boy knows that guns are stronger than the world's magic
The blessing of always having an ace in his cards
The best combo is imagination and logic
Against the Dark - the theoretically tragic
Haunted by the ghosts brought by songs and tales of the bards
With silver bullets, he makes his stand in the graveyards

The boy only lifts his hat and bows down to Big Boss
And he has no fear even of his journeys at night
He’d been personally handpicked by the King for His Great Cause
There is no greater power he knows than of the Cross
Never can the Gates of Hell prevail over the Light
This world calls him a fool, but he'll soon reach that high height

My name is Bernel, of Legazpi, Son of Efren
Soon the day will come when I’ll ride towards the sunset
I will survive the stand-offs, oh, I am sure I can
At Home, I will see the fields of red roses by then
The Ultimate Joy and Pleasure shall be fully met
The music never stops; immortality, not death

Top 10 Fictional Detectives

Mystery is one of the earliest genres of fiction that I grew to love (The first, aside from comic book or cartoon themes, would be fantasy.  Then again, fantasy also has elements of mystery).  I would grow to love most genres, but the mystery genre is special.  There is always something exciting and thrilling from the suspense brought by the unknown.

The mystery genre heavily romanticized the detective character.  Their observational, deductive, and analytical skills seemed to be superhuman. They made the solution to a difficult problem that baffled us – the audience – seemed so obvious and logical that it made us slap our foreheads and say, “Why did I not think of that?”  Moreover, we envy them for the adventures and excitement they enjoyed on their cases.

I have some favorites from these bunch of romanticized detectives.  As I’ve said, I love the mystery genre, thus, I am exposed to many of these characters in pop culture.  However, there are a lot of them, thus, I am also unexposed to heaps more of them.  Many say that Monk (from the TV show of the same name) is one of the best, but I can’t tell since I wasn’t able to watch him in action.  Same goes with a boy named Encyclopedia Brown.  I was not able to read his books.

Nevertheless, from the collection of fictional detectives that I am familiar with, I pick a ten.  Here you go:

10.) NANCY DREW

Even if I have more “Hardy Boys” books than “Nancy Drew” ones, even if I’m a boy, and even if I enjoyed the stories about the Hardies than Nancy, I pick Nancy over the Hardy Boys.  No, it’s not because this list is made up of almost entirely of male characters and I have to add at least one female. No, not that reason.   Why then?  Well, I find that the Hardy Boys have the advantage of being able to work on a case together.  And two heads are better than one.  Still, Nancy had her successes with no partner at all.  So one way we can interpret this is that Nancy’s smart enough for two Hardy Boys.  It is also advantageous to face the danger when there are two of you, and Nancy – a girl at most – faces it alone.  Nothing against girls, but boys are physically (and, often, psychologically) stronger and more durable.  So it is impressive that even if she is limited by her sex (physically), she boldly jumps at mystery and danger. 

Not convinced?  Well, okay, I admit.  I added Nancy Drew because this list needs at least one girl.  The 10th spot can go either way, to the Hardy Boys or to Nancy.  But, I still think Nancy has an edge.  By a hair (and a pretty reddish-blonde hair at that).

9.) THE 3 INVESTIGATORS

Yes, I have read more “Nancy Drew” and “Hardy Boys” books than “3 Investigators” books, but I think that the 3 Investigators – made up of Jupiter Jones, Pete Crenshaw, and Bob Andrews – are better detectives than the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew… put together.  Really.   

Usually, I find that Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys solve their cases more by the help of lucky coincidences rather than awesome detective skills.  Sure, Nancy and the Hardies are cool with all that sleuthing, but I see them lacking in analytical skills.  3 Investigators, however, have the combination of energy for sleuthing and rad analytical skills.  Or at least Jupiter Jones.  Jupe is actually the one among the three that has the admirable detective mental talents.  He’s smart; has great stock knowledge and observational and logical talents.  The other two – Pete and Bob – are more of “enablers” when Jupe is thinking, the muscles when the going gets tough (mostly Pete), the cheerers, or data gatherers (Jupe, then, would analyze the data).  Nonetheless, they are a great team and deserve my number nine spot in this list.

8.) DR. HALEDJIAN

I was not able to read even at least one of Donald J. Sobol’s award-winning “Encyclopedia Brown” books, but I did read his “Two-Minute Mysteries” books, in which a case follows the same format of an Encyclopedia Brown case but shorter (can be read in two minutes) and are more for teens and grownups (as Encyclopedia Brown was for kids.)  The hero of these two-minute mysteries is the famous Dr. Haledjian, a brilliant criminologist.  He is smart and sharp, who has an amazing talent for noticing the details and has knowledge on many facts.

7.) SHAWN SPENCER

The main protagonist of Psych is a unique detective (at least, the first I encountered in fiction).  As a child, his father – a cop – trained him extensively on observation, memory, and deduction.  Thus, he grew up to have genius-level detective skills: great observation skills, an eidetic memory (which revealed later on as something he inherited from his mother, and not really from the exercises), and deductive skills.  He is able to quickly logically interpret what the data he got from his observation mean (like being able to describe a person or past event accurately).  With these skills present, he often made tips to the police hotline, until the police started being suspicious, thinking that the information he gave at one time is so clear that they presume he was an inside source.  To avoid getting himself into police custody, he pretended that he was a psychic.  This would ultimately lead Shawn – with his bestfriend Burton Guster – to form a psychic detective agency called “Psych” (for the kicks of the adventures it can bring).  From then on, police regularly ask “Psych” as consultant in some of their cases. 

Shawn is always wacky and joking around, and seems to be solely motivated by the fun a case or activity can bring.  However, this actually helps him think and helps get rid of the pressure (as shown in the first “Mr. Yin/Yang” episode).  Moreover, as one character implied, Shawn is ashamed of the great intelligence he has and that’s why he acts juvenile.    

Intelligent but tinges of childishness, irresponsibility, clumsiness and immaturity.  This is the most interesting thing about Shawn.

6.) SHINICHIRO KUDO a.k.a. CONAN EDOGAWA

Shinichi Kudo is a 17-year old high school student and a famous amateur detective.  He was able to solve difficult cases that even professionals were not able to solve.   Then at one time, while he was on an investigation, he was assaulted and was forced to swallow a pill that turned him back to a child.  Being transformed into a child, he took the name Conan Edogawa (combination of two detective writers’ names) on himself.  He now lives with Ran Mori (Kudo’s love interest and friend), who has a private detective as a father.  Her father, Kogoru Mori, is greatly incompetent in deduction.  However, as Conan tags along with his cases, Conan would solve the cases behind the scenes and then he would give the credit of the solved cases to Mori.    

Personally, I find the show’s theme of “hero being turned into a child” completely unnecessary.  Why not just make an outright detective anime?  Something without ridiculous “pills-that-can-make-one-a-child-again” elements. Make the hero either a teenage detective or child detective and not a teenage detective turned child.  However, the Japanese anime “Detective Conan” is one the most entertaining animes ever created since the cases are interesting and it is fun to watch Conan in his investigations.

5.) C. AUGUSTE DUPIN

He would have ranked higher in this list if he appeared in more than just three short stories by Edgar Allan Poe.  Dupin is definitely one of the models from where Sherlock Holmes is conceptualized (by Conan Doyle) from.  He is not a full-time detective, but rather just tackled cases that caught his fancy (i.e. why there are only three stories).  Moreover, the word “detective” was not yet coined when Poe wrote about him.  

He is extremely smart; can absorb and retain data extremely well and has good analytical skills.  In fact, he even “read minds”, just by observing behavior (pretty much like Sherlock Holmes) to the astonishment of the one being observed. 

His detective method is by logical science and creative imagination.  A sort of combination of the objective and the speculative type of reasoning.  An illustration of this creative imagination is when he put himself in the mind of the criminal.  Like Sherlock Holmes, Dupin is portrayed as an ultimate logical and analytical thinking machine that is devoid of any emotion.

4.) HERCULE POIROT

I have yet to read an Agatha Christie mystery that involved Miss Marple – the legendary elderly spinster turned amateur detective.  All the Christie books I read involved the equally legendary Hercule Poirot.  Poirot is smart and sharp (yeah, yeah, this description is getting clichéd since all of these detectives in this list are).  He works efficiently with logic, piecing together all available information and turning it to a coherent solution.  This would involve analyzing all the suspects and possibilities.  Instead of directly accusing the culprit of the crime, he would, one by one, using a logical-type of reasoning, make the case for the suspects. He would enumerate the logical arguments that presume a suspect is guilty, and then make the counter-arguments against it.  It was as if he is the affirmative and negative sides of a debate rolled into one.  He would analyze the culprit for last. 

Poirot establishes himself as a psychological detective, as he deals more with the people – the suspects and witnesses – rather than the hard evidences (i.e. crime scene).  He is a master manipulator, and often would find a way to make people talk.  To get himself underestimated or to gain these people’s confidences, he would resort to different methods like portraying himself as a sympathetic confidant or telling them lies.   Aside from his detective skills, this ability for grifting or fraud is his greatest asset.

3.) ELIJAH BALEY

Elijah Baley is the agoraphobic hero of three of the four “Robot” novels (which, though it has several underlying themes, at the core, is a mystery novel in a sci-fi setting) written by Isaac Asimov.  He is a plainclothesman (homicide detective) and was paired with a “humaniform” robot (a robot with human  appearance) named R. Daneel Olivaw (who was first of his kind) to solve a murder.  Being an Earthman, Baley is prejudiced against robots.  However, he had made a strong lifelong friendship with Daneel. 

Baley is an excellent detective.  His methods are very much the same as Hercule Poirot: the use of psychology and logic. He analyzes and discusses all the points of the case – from different perspectives, presenting both arguments and counter-arguments for the guilt of a suspect – in an efficient logical manner.  

Yes, he makes mistakes in his conclusions sometimes.   But the train of logic to that conclusion never breaks.  His arguments are always valid – in a logical sense (since in logic, valid and true does not need to be the same).  In one instance, Baley built a perfect argument against Daneel’s claim that he is a robot.  Since Daneel is the first of his kind, Baley found it hard to believe that such human-like robot is a robot.  Based on a previous experience and other facts as premises, Baley deduced, in a perfect logical context, that Daneel is a human, and what the latter said about being robot was a lie.  Baley was only convinced fully when Daneel finally revealed his interior that proved that he is a machine.

2.) BATMAN

Batman is more known as a badass superhero/vigilante, but he operates in a detective manner.  That’s why one of his comic books is named “Detective Comics” and one of his nicknames is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. As a detective, Batman has proven to be an outstanding observer, proficient investigator and cold, logical thinking machine.         

I already wrote about his character in the previous top 10 list (on comicbook characters), where he was also number two.

1.) SHERLOCK HOLMES

No surprise.   Sherlock Holmes gets the first spot on this list.  A long time ago, he became my most favorite fictional character as soon as I read his stories (written by Dr. Watson/Conan Doyle).  His powers of logic, observation, and deduction amazed me.

Holmes considers himself a “consulting detective”, the person Scotland Yard detectives ask for advice when they are stumped by a case.  And, usually, Holmes let the police detective who asked him for advice to have the credit for the solving of the case if it is too easy for his standards (though the detectives who consulted him find it very difficult).  These puzzling mysteries are “elementary” to him.  He also accepts cases from the public, as long as it's unusual and challenging enough to catch his interest.   

Holmes is a better version of C. Auguste Dupin as a dehumanized logical thinking machine.  He strongly scorns emotion, since it can cloud sound judgment.   He gives more importance to the deductive or analytical reasoning, since he claims that deduction is more difficult than induction (but he’s great at both types).  Holmes possesses great observational skills, attention to details, and quick analytical skills to create a train of logical reasoning which arrives at a solution or conclusion.  His most famous analytical dictum is “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”, which I find a very effective advise in elimination of factors.

  

Aside from his detective skills, he is very versatile and multi-talented.  He is a skilled combatant; an expert in fencing, boxing and baritsu (bartitsu).   He’s a great actor and master of disguise.  He’s an expert in forensic science and chemistry.  He is multi-lingual.   He’s a competent cryptanalyst.  He has a wide scope of interests and knowledge on different subjects.  He loves art and literature (particularly, of the sensational genre, though he also referred to works like the Bible and Shakespeare).  He loves music, and can play the violin.  He also has authorship of several monographs on different subjects.   

His great intellect and versatility makes him a very interesting character and, hands down, the best detective in fiction.

Top 10 Comic Book Characters

I started loving literature because of comic books.  And comic books have some of the most interesting characters in literature.  Some of them even became global pop culture icons.  Who does not know Superman?  Nobody.  We can’t deny the impact that these characters made. 

Here are my top ten characters from comic books – Western (American) comic books specifically.  No manga characters here (I’ll probably make one exclusively for manga characters in a future “top 10” list).  So, here we go:        

10.) SIMON ARCHARD

Archard is the hero of the comic book “Ruse” – published by Crossgen (which is now bankrupt).   The elements of “Ruse” are very Sherlock Holmes-like; a brilliant detective (Archard), a Victorian setting, logic, mysteries, and all that… but with a touch of fantasy.  Yes, Archibald deals with magic and the supernatural, but he doesn’t have any superpowers at all (He does have an assistant – Emma Bishop – who is a sorceress.  Archibald is aware of this fact, even though Bishop conceals her powers to him).  Aside from his “Sherlock Holmes”-esque intelligence and persona, he also makes use of a network of agents that works for him when on a case.

So, why did he make the list?  (People who know my preferences will easily understand why) Simple.  Sherlock Holmes-like.

9.) JUGHEAD

Forysthe Pendleton “Jughead” Jones III is the bestfriend of Archie Andrews – who is Archie Comics’ flagship character (obviously).    Jughead is the deepest and most interesting character among Archie’s gang, thus, he is my most favorite character in Archie Comics (in fact, I have more Jughead books than Archie ones).  

Jughead has several hobbies and interests, in which girls are not part of them.  But above all of these is his love for food and eating.  The amazing thing about him is that no matter how much food he eats, he remains skinny.  And even if he consumes large amounts of food, he always have room in his belly to eat some more.  More amazing still is, since he’s a lazy and easy-going person, it makes you wonder why he isn’t fat since (the lack of) physical activity does not explain the burning of the food he eats.   A very rapid metabolism might explain it. 

It’s not that Jughead is lazy and inactive all the time.  He is sometimes portrayed as someone that is into sports and even part a varsity sports team, particularly basketball.  It is also shown the he is an adept skateboarder.  Indeed, Jughead does venture into physical activities when motivated or if he thinks it's going to be fun. 

He is probably the most versatile character in the gang.  He can play the drums.  He is a skilled food critique and cook (obviously, because of his love for food).  And he has an above-average intelligence and has vast knowledge on different subjects and topics, which surprises friends and teachers, even if he’s not the studious-type (his I.Q. is just behind Dilton Doiley’s and equal with or probably even higher than Betty Cooper’s).  My favorite thing about Jughead, though, is his wry and sarcastic type of humor and his ability to psyche out opponents with this.

8.) JOKER

The greatest comic book villain ever is the Joker.  I think a large amount of comic book fans will agree with me.  Joker’s characterization and creation is so well done.  The Batman mythos is made more enjoyable because of the Joker, as Joker’s twisted sense of chaos is a perfect antithesis to Batman’s gritty sense of justice.  He is batshit (no pun intended) insane but a highly intelligent criminal mastermind.  His madness is an advantage to him since it enables him to make lots of risky decisions without second thought.  He is definitely one of the most dangerous and evil villains in comic books, even if he does not have immense powers like Darkseid or Thanos (imagine if Joker has that kind of power... yikes!)

Why is he so popular and fascinating?  Because we can easily see the evil he personifies.  Joker is the greatest supervillain in comics because he is the perfect evil ever epitomized in comic books.

 

7.) VENOM

Venom is an alien symbiote that possesses several powers including shapeshifting, regeneration, and augmentation of its host strength and speed.  Its weakness includes fire, loud sounds, and electricity.  First worn by Spider-Man (in Secret Wars), it initially helped Spider-Man and allowed him to become stronger and provided him with new abilities.  However, when Spidy learned that it was a murderous sentient being that wants to permanently bind with him, he got rid of it.  Then, the symbiote merged with Eddie Brock, which allowed him to physically manifest his hatred on Spidy (Brock is driven by his desire for revenge on Spidy, who he blames for the demise of his life, marriage, and career).  The symbiote is currently with Marc Gargan (the former Scorpion), but Brock is the most popular Venom.  The Brock Venom, aside from being a major Spidy supervillain, also served as a vigilante, though the murderous desires were still present. 

Venom is very popular because it is a rich and charismatic character, and because of these, it earns a place in this list.  However, I am not a fan of Marvel’s decision of making the Scorpion as the new Venom (and Eddie Brock as the Anti-Venom antihero/superhero).  Nonetheless, Venom is one of the best supervillain/antihero ever created.      

6.) GAMBIT (Remy LeBeau)

Gambit is an early favorite of mine.  The X-Men animated series of the 90’s and the “Marvel vs. Capcom” game made me grow fond of Gambit.  His graceful bo-staff fighting skills and ability to throw explosive cards (due to his mutant powers) easily won me over. Or maybe I grow to like Gambit because he used his “hypnotic charm”, another mutant power of his, on me.  His character is just oozing with charisma and suaveness.    

A former thief and revealed to have had connections with Mr. Sinister, Gambit was accepted by the X-Men.  And he has proven himself a loyal and invaluable member, though there are a few times that he had made wrong decisions to alienate himself from the team.  But no matter what the flaws of Gambit are, he sincerely loves the X-Men and feels that they are family to him and does his best to redeem himself. 

Gambit is one of the coolest comic book heroes ever.  Ironically, he is also one of the most underrated. 

5.) SUPERMAN (Clark Kent)

The Man of Steel.  The Man of Tomorrow.  The Last Son of Krypton.  “It’s a bird.  No, it’s a plane.  No, it’s Superman.”

As I’ve said, who does not know Superman?  We all know him as, probably, the most powerful superhero – only rivaled by Thor – there is.  He has several powers like flight, super speed, super strength, super hearing, X-ray vision, heat vision, and freeze breathe.  But – non-comic book fans does not know this – he often “holds back” and would only go “all out” when his opponents are the most powerful kind like Darkseid or Doomsday.  This is to avoid killing or making too much (collateral) damage.  Thus, he’s actually not operating at full power most of the time!     

Non-comic book fans found it ridiculous that people around Clark Kent can’t determine that he’s Superman in disguise.  But actually, the glasses are not the only thing that separates Superman and Clark Kent.  As Clark Kent, he has a different hairstyle, voice, mannerisms, posture (Clark Kent is shorter), psyche, and other minor but accumulated details that greatly distinguishes the alter egos from each other.

What I like most about Superman is his character.  Power corrupts.  And Superman has too much power. But he never abused it.  Remember, that he often “holds back” with his powers.  And this is really admirable about him.  He adheres to a strict moral code because of his Midwestern (i.e. Bible belt) upbringing (by foster parents Jonathan and Martha Kent).  And because of this, he is called a “Boy Scout”, either in insult or good humored teasing.  He is, in my opinion, the superhero with the highest E.Q.  He seldom loses his cool, always patient, always having self-control, and having a healthy mental/emotional equilibrium. 

4.) WOLVERINE (Logan, James Howlett)

In anyone’s “best comic book characters” lists, Wolverine will always rank high.   In fact, he ranked as the number one comic book character of Wizard Magazine.  He’s only number four in my list since I have three more characters who I think are cooler than Wolverine.  Even so, this should not discount Wolverine’s greatness as a comic book character.  He’s one of the best.

Wolverine is badassery personified.  If you look up the word “badass” in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Wolverine on it (I know… I know… this wordplay is old already).  If Gambit is oozing with charisma, Wolverine is just overflowing with badassery… the claws and the sound of “Snikt!” when he extends them… his unbreakable adamantium skeleton…. his “devil may care” act first, ask questions later, anti-authority attitude… his toughness and durability, which are enforced by his healing powers… his “berserker”-mode… we love him because of these… for being the perfect down-to-earth, tough, antihero.    

Moreover, because Wolverine is rough and savage in nature, he is mistaken as the “all-brawns, no-brains”-type by non-comic book fans.  Wolverine is actually very intelligent. Though he overcomes opponents with brute, he is actually a very cerebral fighter and a proficient strategist.  He has a wide range of knowledge and skills, like flying planes and being able to speak several languages. Wolverine is both brains and brawns.

 

3.) RORSCHACH (Walter Joseph Kovaks)

Definitely, Rorschach is the most favorite character in Watchmen by comic book fans.  He is a crazier, grittier, extremer version of the Question (who is a major inspiration for the former’s creation) and Batman (another inspiration).  Unlike his fellow costumed crime fighters, he did not quit adventuring (crime fighting) when it was outlawed.  He, instead, started a one-man crusade against crime.  He brutally hunted and punished criminals and he would even kill them without hesitation if he thought they deserved it.  He’s an extreme right wing vigilante.  His intense cynicism and methods are attributed to him being mentally ill. However, this does not prevent him from thinking analytically and deductively.  Rorschach showed some merit as a detective.

As a combatant, Rorschach – similar with the other non-Dr. Manhattan characters in Watchmen – has no super powers.  But he is highly proficient in close-quarters street fighting.  He uses any available weapon or potential weapon – e.g. pepper, toilet bowl, cooking fat, etc. – to aid him.  He also possesses high tolerability to discomfort or pain.               

2.) BATMAN (Bruce Wayne)

Aside from being referred to as “The Dark Knight” and “The Caped Crusader”, he has also been called “The World’s Greatest Detective.”  And rightfully so.  Since he has no super powers, Batman’s main weapon is his intelligence.  He has brilliant analytical and deductive skills and he is an excellent strategist, always thinking one step ahead.  This plus the support of his (Bruce Wayne’s) wealth – arming himself with high-tech gadgets, equipment and vehicles – allow him to function and survive in the world of superheroes.    

He’s the model for the grittier, darker side of the superhero character (in which Superman is the “sunny”-model of the superhero character).  He believes that the ends justify the means.  That sometimes, to obtain justice and to make things right, he has to break the rules.  This is probably because he is vengeance-motivated; wanting to avenge the murder of his parents by fighting crime.  He makes use of this grim and cynical nature of his to his advantage.             

The trait of Batman that I like the most is his focus and work ethic.  He trained – and continues to train – himself hard; toughening himself both mentally and physically.  Thus, he is a brilliant scientist and logician, an expert in psychological warfare, adept in several forms of fighting styles, an above-average Olympic-type athlete, and a multi-skilled artist.   He continually makes himself better, in the best ways he can.  

 

1.) SPIDER-MAN (Peter Parker)

Spidey is my most favorite comic book character (and fictional character, before I encountered Sherlock Holmes) since I first picked up a comic book.  His greatest charm is of him being, probably, the most “human” among superheroes.  Yes, he has superpowers and all that, but, like the rest of us, he has human problems that we can relate to.  Girl problems, school problems, how to pay the bills, etc.  These he has to juggle with along with the hustles of being a superhero.  As a superhero, he is sometimes (or often?) underappreciated by the populace and even thought of as a menace – thanks to the anti-Spidey media campaigns of the number one Spidey hater, J. Jonah Jameson (ironically, the employer of Peter Parker).  But no matter what, appreciated or unappreciated by the people he saves, with or without the pressure brought by his personal problems, he continues to do the right thing. He saves people.  He fights crime.  He battles supervillains (even those more powerful than him).   He indeed lives by his “with great power comes great responsibility” motto, that God gave him a gift, thus, he must use it for good, no matter what (this he learned the hard way when his Uncle Ben got killed by a robber he did not capture when he had the chance).   Heavy stuff, right?  More admirable still is that Spidey started being a superhero when he was fifteen! A mere fifteen-year older already having a high sense of duty and morals amidst the heavy emotional burdens of being a teenager and a superhero?  Totally inspiring.          

Spidey possesses a genius level of intellect.  He is a science wiz as he invented the formula for his “webs” and the web shooters to shoot from.   When he goes against opponents, especially those that have more resources or are more powerful than him, he regularly makes use of his intelligence to aid him.  Aside from intelligence, Spidey also possesses a high-level of wit.  This he uses by frequently making jokes or clever statements, even when he is fighting.   In fact, he even uses his wit to “psyche out” opponents, to his advantage. 

His powers are cool and unique.  Besides superhuman levels of strength (spider-strength), balance, reflexes, stamina, durability, speed, and agility, he also has the ability to cling to walls like a spider and an early warning ESP device called “spider-sense” that tells him of a danger approaching.   Because of gaining spider abilities, he moves in a graceful arachnid motion and mannerism (thanks mostly to Todd McFarlane’s interpretation of the character) which is very appealing to see. 

And because of these – cool powers, cool and fashionable mannerisms, intelligence, charisma, high entertainment-value, and rapport – (even if he has undergone some of the worst storylines in comic book history) he remains one of the most enduring and iconic comic book favorites of all time. 

Spider-Man is number one.  The greatest comic book character ever.  

Top 10 Thought Provokers

I love to think.  I love mysteries.  I love mind-blowing ideas.  I love stimulation of the mind.  That’s all the preamble this list needs.   Let’s move on, my top ten thought provoking topics…

10.) OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

“Can God create a stone that he can’t lift?”

I already talked about Omnipotence Paradox before in the second essay of my “Innocent, Until Proven Guilty” piece.  It’s the cleverest argument I encountered that dismisses an existence of a God.  By that simple question, I was stumped (for a while).  If God can create and then creates a stone that even He can’t lift, then he ceases to be omnipotent; he would no longer be all-powerful if there is something – this stone – that he can’t lift. In contrast, if God can’t create such stone that even He can’t lift, then he is not at all omnipotent in the first place because there is something that he can’t create.   Either way, it was a thesis that seemed to destroy the idea of an omnipotent God.  If omnipotence is an impossibility, then there can never be an omnipotent God (that created the universe), and therefore, since God should be an omnipotent being, then there is no God.  The logic seemed to be perfect. 

But the premise is actually fallacious.  The “omnipotence paradox” argument was never applicable to use on God in the first place.      

If asked: “Can God create a stone that he can’t lift?”  The correct answer is “No, he can’t and won’t.”  God’s omnipotence or being all-powerful should NOT be associated to being able to do everything.  In fact, aside from creating a stone that He can’t lift, there are other things that God can’t – and won’t – do.   God can’t sin.  God can’t lie.  God can’t cease to exist or destroy himself.  God can’t make a “square circle”.  There are actually things that God can’t do.

 

God’s omnipotence means he is able to do everything… THAT is in accordance with his will and nature.  God can’t sin because he is holy (holy, holy).  And he can’t make a “stone that he can’t lift” because it is logically ridiculous.  C.S. Lewis said that the idea of the Omnipotence Paradox – asking God to create a stone that he can’t lift – is as absurd as the idea of asking God to create a “square circle”.  God is not above logic, which will allow him to make a “square circle”.  And God is neither below logic, in which logic has authority over God to forbid him to make a “square circle”.  Rather, logic is part of God’s nature because he is a God of order.  God is logic.  And God can’t and won’t do anything contrary to his nature.  As much as He can’t sin because He is holy, God can’t make a “square circle” or a “stone that he can’t lift” because He is logic and order.

A shape cannot be both a square and a non-square (circle).  The Law of Non-contradiction (or just simple common sense) tells us that “Something cannot be A and non-A at the same time and at the same relationship.”  Thus, a shape cannot be both a square and a non-square (circle).  God can’t be both holy and unholy.  And God can’t be both a God of order and a God of disorder.  And since everything God does is in accordance to his will and nature, he can’t create a “stone that he can’t lift”, not because he is not omnipotent or powerful enough, but because it would be contradictory to his will and nature of order.

By these arguments, we can now conclude that though Omnipotence Paradox is logically clever, it is however, logically inapplicable to the context of God’s omnipotence.  It is also unfair.  A particular musician can only play one type of musical instruments, let us say, he can only play wind instruments.  But though he can only exclusively play wind instruments, he can play them magnificently and brilliantly.  Now, you asked him to play a guitar – a string instrument.  Of course, he can’t play it.  You then said, “Ha!  Then you’re not a good musician after all.”   Is that fair?  Omnipotence Paradox is like that.

Nonetheless, the Omnipotence Paradox provoked me to thinking (and thanks to the writings of C.S. Lewis and R.C. Sproul, Jr. for helping me out to get around it). 

9.) THE SHIP OF THESEUS

The “Ship of Theseus” notion was first tackled by Plutarch.  It tells of a ship – the Ship of Theseus – that had lasted for one hundred years and was still seaworthy after all those years due to regular and perfect maintenance.  As soon as a part gets old, broken, or rotten, it is quickly replaced.  Therefore, a hundred years later, no part of the original ship remains. 

(For those who didn’t understand…) To make it simpler, imagine that this ship is only made up of 4 parts… let us call them A, B, C, and D.  As a part becomes old, broken or rotten, it was replaced.  First, A was broken and replaced by E.  Then part B became rotten and was replaced by F.   Later, C was replaced by G.  And last, part D was replaced by H.  Now, instead of parts A, B, C, and D, the Ship of Theseus is now composed of parts E, F, G, and H after 100 years.      

Now the questions that rose from this are: a) does this ship – after 100 years of replacing parts – still remain the same Ship of Theseus or is it something new entirely?; b) if not, when did it stop being the same ship?; and c) if the original and old parts of the Ship of Theseus (i.e. “parts A, B, C, and D”) were used to make a new ship, which of the two vessels is the real Ship of Theseus or has the right to call itself as the “Ship of Theseus”?

Fascinating, right?

The idea can also be interpreted or applied on other concepts or systems or groups as well, like bands.  Given a hypothetical 5-man band, which we will call, er, “Band”.  “Band” is originally composed of VocalsA, GuitarA, BassA, KeyboardsA and DrumsA.   Now “Band” would experience several lineup changes.  First, VocalsA leaves and gets replaced by VocalsB.  Then, GuitarA leaves and gets replaced by GuitarB.  And so on, until eventually a few or none of the original “Band” members consist the band.  Same questions will arise, as above.   

The “Ship of Theseus” debate is a pretty interesting for the discussion of how can the parts of a system (or group or organization) contribute to its identity.  What gives a system its identity, its parts or its design?

8.) MATRIX

This proposal is simple: it is possible (even probable) that we are actually living in a computer simulation.  Silly thesis?  Actually, the arguments for it are not absurd.  This idea was popularized by the epic The Matrix Trilogy (which will go in history as among the best movies ever made) but this idea predates the movies and was always a popular thought experiment for philosophers and scientists. 

The inspiration for this thesis is when Rene Descarte questioned how he can he be sure that the sensations he feels are his own and not by illusions caused by a demon.  This would lead him to his legendary epigram “Cogito Ergo Sum” or “I think, therefore I am.”  However, when it is realized that the brain can be stimulated by electrodes to think, this seems to make “cogito ergo sum” moot. 

Let me use the “brain in a vat” hypothesis for this discussion.  There are other hypotheses that propose the great possibility of us actually existing in an illusionary Matrix-type reality, like “Simulation Hypothesis” and “Dream Argument”.  But let me use the “brain in a vat” since I like it most among the other theses because it is more comprehensive and because all other such theses are similar to each other in its premise anyway.  So, let us consider the “brain in a vat” hypothetical scenario:

Imagine that a mad scientist (or a machine – to make it eerily similar to the Matrix concept) removes a person’s brain from its body and put it in a vat of chemicals that can sustain its life.  This brain’s neurons are then connected by wires to a computer which will send electrical impulses that the brain receives from different stimuli.  Since life activities, interactions, experiences, the five senses, and all information is filtered to the brain, then reality can be simulated!   That brain – or that person which the brain was disemboweled from! – would be able to “live” life as if it’s a normal conscious experience. 

Therefore, how can the brain know if it’s in a skull or a vat?  How can we tell that what we are experiencing is indeed real and not a simulation of a machine that sends signals to our brain that interpret it as if we’re living in reality?  We actually can’t.  Thus, we can never be able to dismiss the possibility that we are actually living in a “Matrix” world.

       

Since we can never tell if we exist in a reality or a simulated reality, we can’t do something about it.  Empiricism becomes inutile in this context.  And, again, all left is faith.  We can only have faith that what we are experiencing is reality and we should live as if it’s reality.

7.) HISTORICAL MYSTERIES, LEGENDS, CRYPTIDS, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, ETC.

UFOs.  The Dyatlov Pass mystery.  An inner Earth (i.e. A world below us a la “Journey to the Centre of the Earth”-scenario).  Jews are out to take over the world.  Jack the Ripper.  Springheel Jack. Nikola Tesla’s mysterious and unknown inventions – in which the “death ray” is the most famous among them.  The Abominable Snowman.  Area 51.  Ancient Egyptian artifacts found in the Grand Canyon.  The Lost City of Atlantis.  Alien’s connection to the building of the pyramids of ancient Egypt.  Bigfoot.  The Philadelphia Experiment.  Vimanas.  The Flying Dutchman.  The mystery of the Chase family vault.  The Bimini Road.  Shadow people.  The Loch Ness Monster.  9/11 Twin Tower attacks were planned by the USA.  Haunted places.  The Bermuda Triangle.  CIA created AIDS.  Roswell.  Mayan 2012 Calendar.  Mu.  Lemuria.  Amphibious creatures helping the Sumerians hasten their dramatic civilization advancement.  Existence of a dinosaur-like creature called Mokele-mbembe in Congo’s forests.  Nostradamus’ predictions.  The Oera Linda Book.  Alien’s connection to the Nazca Lines.  Human spontaneous combustion.   Kaspar Hauser.  Lost world of dinosaurs.  Ape-Human hybrids of the ancient times.  Lost cities of gold.  Yamashita treasure.  The Green Children of Woolpit.  And more alien-related stuff.                   

Most people are vulnerable to the charm and thrill given by such mysteries.  And I am one of those people.  Sometimes the proposed theory or explanation on a certain mystery or the proposed mystery itself sounds absurd.  Absurd but mind-blowing.  That’s what gives them their charm.  They are mind-blowing.  Some of them even have some evidences, which make us think of their validity as truth.

Personally, the Moon Landing Hoax would be my favorite.  Conspiracists have concrete and sensible arguments with this one. 

6.) MORAL AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS

Of course, a moral or ethical move is to choose the right thing to do.  But sometimes the right thing to do is quite difficult to do or quite difficult to define.  Sometimes one would have to do something unethical or illegal or contradicting to another moral code to do the right thing.  It’s not always “to steal or not to steal”, but it can become as complicated as “to steal to save an innocent life or to not steal and let an innocent life perish.”  Morality is complicated.  Not all moral dilemmas are simple choices between definite right and definite wrong.

In a though experiment called “Trolley problem”, a villain tied 5 innocent people on a track and a trolley is moving out of control towards them.  However, there is one (and only) option to save them.  There is a lever that is accessible to you, that if you pull it, it would direct the trolley to another track.  But there’s a catch: a single person is tied to that track.  Thus, if you pull the lever, you would have saved the initial five men but would result to the death of another man.  Would you take the utilitarian approach of “the greatest good for the greatest number” by pulling the lever and saving 5 lives at the cost of 1?  Or would you be passive and let it be?  If you pull the lever, you would have saved 5 men but would have done an immoral act – you will be instrumental and partially responsible to a death of one man.   But not pulling the lever would be equally immoral since by inaction, you allowed 5 men to die when you have the option to save them.     

Another popular and interesting thought experiment on morality is the “Jack Bauer scenario” or the “24 scenario”. 

You haven’t heard of it?  Fine.  It is actually called the “ticking time bomb” scenario.   Here, there’s a nuclear bomb hidden in the city and its timer is ticking closer to zero.  There is no more time for evacuation and the only way is to defuse the bomb.  You are able to catch the terrorist that has hidden the bomb or has the knowledge on where the bomb is hidden.   Would you resort to torturing him to get that information?  Would you go to the extent of resorting to torture that terrorist’s wife and children when he refuses to crack when you torture him?

Again, I repeat: morality is complicated.  In real-life situations, there would be scenarios where one has to compromise one’s moral codes to do the right thing.  The epigram of Salvor Hardin (a character of Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation”) says, “Never let your set of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”  Sometimes, there are no “moral” options at all.  Circumstances like choosing the “lesser evil” is a reality. 

Thus, it annoys me when people speculate that they would have done better in someone else’s shoes in a particular moral dilemma.  The popular of which is “I would have not eaten the apple if I were Eve [or Adam]” as if they would have done better.  I also find people who scorn the statement “the end justify the means” arrogant, hypocritical, ignorant, or annoying… or all of these.  These people deny that there are situations where the only approach for a good end is an “end justify the means” approach.  Although, it is actually true that an immoral action is not erased at all by the good or right end it brought.  The doer has to suffer the consequence of that action.  However, the good end it brought should not be discounted at all especially if this immoral act is the only available option to bring that good end.  The observers have no right to condemn the doer and they should just leave the judgment to authority.  And as for the authority, though the doer has to answer for breaking a law or moral code and that the authority is not at all required to pardon him, authority still has to consider the good end the action brought when passing judgment (that’s why Black Ops agents, when breaking laws or rules to bring peace and security to their nation, are almost always readily pardoned by their president).

For people who are fortunate not to experience such difficult moral and ethical dilemmas, they should not act as if they would have done or would do better in such situation.  They should be thankful that they don’t experience such difficult dilemmas.  Personally, I am thankful that I am not in the shoes of people that have to decide on hard moral problems.  I prefer to just think about hypothetical moral scenarios rather than experiencing them.  Simple moral dilemmas are hustle enough, what more of complicated ones?

5.) TIME TRAVEL

Time travel is everybody’s favorite.  This is probably because of fiction’s continues creative usage of time travel as motif or theme.  We are all fascinated by the possibility of travelling through time.  The idea of going to the past – to “change the present” or to get the answers on historical mysteries – or going to the future – to satisfy our curiosity of what is going to happen or how things would turn out – is very charming indeed. 

Time travel, though, is still closer to science fiction than concrete scientific and technological possibility.  Albert Einstein, who is probably the brightest mind to be authority on the subject, proposed that it is only possible to time travel to the future and travelling to the past is impossible.  According to Laws of Physics, as we know it, specifically the principle of special relativity’s time dilation (time “slows” in velocity), a one-way trip to the future is the only potential. 

Another argument we can use to dismiss time travel to the past is: if it became a possibility in our future, why haven’t we heard of a time traveler coming from the future?  If time travel to the past is possible, why haven’t any of our descendants from the future traveled to their past – our present?  Giving this thought, it’s a good enough argument to dismiss, at least, time travel to the past.

I already tackled about the some concerns of time travel – time travel’s romances, the charm of paradoxes, relationship of time travel with creation of new realities, etc. – in a past essay, and you may want to check it out.

4.) PSYCHOHISTORY

In Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” universe, a mathematician named Hari Seldon developed a mind-blowing science called “Psychohistory”, a science that combines history, sociology, and statistics that would make prediction of future historical events possible.  Psychohistory dwells on the premise that though it is impossible to predict the actions of a particular individual (due to the complexity of every individual’s unique psyche), statistical principles can be used to create a model – converting historical factors to statistical and probability equations – that when applied to the mob of humanity as a whole can evaluate and predict the general flow of future events.    The behavior of gas was used as an analogy for the behavior of the mob of humanity.  A scientist would find it near impossible to predict the motion of a gas molecule, but he could predict the mass action of gas very accurately (this behavior-predicting principle is known in Physics as Kinetic Theory).   

For Psychohistorical predictions to be accurate, it has two (basic) foundational axioms: a) “that the population whose behavior was modeled should be sufficiently large” i.e. at least 50 billion people (Psychohistorical Science applied to an individual or small group would be unsuccessful to predict future events), and b) “the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses.”  In the last “Foundation” novel in chronology, another assumption was proposed which was not acknowledged by Hari Seldon when he was formulating his model.   This axiom should be “that human beings are the only sentient intelligence in the galaxy.”  Seldon probably did not thought of it because it’s trivial or he never at all considered that there might be other beings aside from homo sapiens in the galaxy. 

In the story, using psychohistory, Hari Seldon deduced that the quintillion populated Galactic Empire is doomed to fall and humanity would go to a 30,000-year Dark Age.   Thus, Seldon created the Seldon Plan which would reduce the span to 1,000 years.  His plan was to create two separate Foundations (ergo the title) – the first concentrated on science and technology and the second concentrated on psychology and mental powers –  to preserve human knowledge and insure a “Golden Age” after the thousand year Dark Age. 

However, Psychohistory’s predictions – though generally accurate on general events of humanity – can be thrown off sync by a statistical anomaly: a deviation of an individual from the mean.  In the story, it was a psychic mutant named the Mule.  To “fix” this statistical anomalies and to put the Plan back into its original flow are the responsibilities of the Second Foundation, in which the members possess the appropriate psychic powers for the job.

Psychohistory, though still a science fiction concept, can provoke pondering on its potential to be a workable science.  I suggest you read Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” novels (as well as the “Galactic Empire” novels and “Robot” novels which served as prologues to the series) to appreciate more the beauty and incredibleness of Psychohistory.

3.) CHAOS

Some scientists think that the identity of the 20^th century’s scientific achievements is summarized by the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and chaos theory. 

In my list of quotes, I summarized Chaos Theory’s idea as “Complex systems, though as if acting randomly, have an underlying order in it. And simple systems, though can easily be predicted in theory, can produce complex behavior. Thus, in chaos can be order, and in order can be chaos.”  It all comes down to the realization that systems of Creation as we know of are complicated; “small” factors that seem trivial could create accumulating long-term impact on the system’s run, thus, it would be difficult or even impossible to predict such system’s behavior.  This principle of tiny factors being able to significantly affect a system’s overall behavior  is popularly known as the Butterfly Effect.  The Butterfly Effect is the basic Chaos principle.  The field of study known as Chaos Theory attempts to have a working model to predict the behavior of these chaotic systems. 

I think Chaos Theory is mostly intended to disprove the existence of God.  Some use it to “cover up” the flaw of a non-Creationism theory: accepting that order can arise from chaos.  Since Chaos Theory tells us that in chaos can be order, and order can be chaos, they then conclude that chaos and order are the same thing.  Thus, the order in Creation can happen by chaotic chance.  Ironically, though, I see it differently and wrote an essay on how Chaos Theory principles actually candidly tell us that the only alternative for the complex systems of Creation to work orderly is the existence of a Sovereign God.  Though Chaos Theory is called “Chaos”, its purpose is actually to find order in what appears to be chaos.  And since God is Order (see: no. 10), there is order in Creation’s system because he created it.  And whatever seems to appear as random behavior – “accidents”, “twist of fate”, “luck” –  or chaos (in its literal sense) we encounter in this life, there is actually underlying order in it because they are all working under God’s will.  Chaos Theory’s quest is to find order, which will lead to Order, which is God.          

2.) ALTERNATE/PARALLEL UNIVERSES

Another thing that we humans love to think or speculate about is “what ifs.”  What if I did that?  What if I didn’t do that?  What if I got there sooner?  What if I got there late?  What if this or what if that.   And the charm of alternate universes is from “what if” scenarios.  In fact, comic books did “what if” scenarios on their characters and storylines.

Speaking of alternate universes and comicbooks, alternate universe is the favorite convenience in serialized long-term fiction, especially comic books, to take care of continuity problems.  Since some comicbooks are already many decades old, already had many storylines, changing writers, and the brand being marketed through different mediums (i.e. TV, movies, books, games, etc), things might get confusing for readers because of the different versions of characters or storylines.  Thus, they use “it’s an alternate universe” approach to fix that.  Makes sense.

Aside from comic books, alternate universes are also used as motifs or subjects in other types of fiction as well.  Thus, alternate universes are more known to be associated to Science Fiction than real Science.  However, alternate universes are actually seriously considered and respected in Science, especially Quantum Physics.      

The idea for alternate universes started with string theory (which states that all matter and energy – since Einstein proved they are the same – are, at the basic form, made up of “strings”), but the equations with string theory does not work when taking into factor the origin of the universe (don’t ask me the technical details, I’m no physicist).  This flaw on string theory would lead to its extension or evolution to M-theory, which now theorize that all matter (and energy) or the universe is made up of a “sheet”, and eventually, to a hypothesis that there are many universes.  The equation for “origin of universe” now fits when a “multiverse” factor is used (again, do not ask me the technical details).

Aside from this “origin of the universe” view, a Many-Worlds theory also rejects the Copenhagen Interpretation in which particles can change behavior at will.  Ok, let’s first tackle the Copenhagen Interpretation.  In an experiment called the “double slit experiment” (which we might remember from our physics classes), an electron is fired to a wall through two slits.  Electron, which is a tiny bit of matter, when shoot through a slit would form this pattern:

And, presumptively, if two slits are used, this should be the pattern:

But instead, what they got was an interference pattern like those made by waves:

The mathematical conclusion was there are times that the electrons go through one slit, or sometimes go through the other slit, and sometimes (here’s the good part) go through both slits at the same time – which means existing in two places at once! 

Wait.  It gets even stranger.  When they try to put an “observing” or “measuring” device to find out what’s it all about, the electron behaved in its expected pattern!

It was like the electron was playing a joke on them.  If it is being watched, it behaves in its expected pattern.  If not watched, it becomes a cloud of probability of going through slit one, or slit two, or simultaneously.  From this, Copenhagen Interpretation concludes that all possibilities and alternatives are reality, all co-existing simultaneously.       

In a thought experiment called “Schrödinger’s Cat”, imagine a cat sealed inside a box for one hour with a radioactive element and a vial of poison.  There’s a 1-out-of-2 chance that the radioactive element will decay during that time, and if it does, the vial is designed to break to release the poison which will kill the cat.  Since there is an equal chance for either scenario, the theory is that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time before the box is opened (after an hour) to see what actually happened.  The point is, again, all possibilities and alternatives can exist simultaneously at the same time.   

Many-worlds theory put it in a whole new level.  Instead of accepting that all alternatives and possibilities can exist at the same time, Many-worlds theory claims that, indeed, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, but they exist in separate alternate universes that do not overlap with each other.  Thus, the interferences in the electrons in the double slit experiment are caused by their bumping into particles of another universe.

So, what do this all mean?   Multiverse, baby.  Some universes might even have different laws of physics.  Some universes may have no “physical” manifestations like planets and stars.  And some universes are like ours.  In fact, there are different versions of people and history as we know it.   For every action done, every alternative or option that existed, every possible scenario, down to the subatomic level, they happened differently.  In a parallel universe, JFK was not assassinated.  In a parallel universe, the South won the American Civil War.  In a parallel universe, the USSR never fell.  In a parallel universe, the world power is the Philippine Empire.  In another universe, you might not have read this top ten list.  In another universe, I haven’t written this.  In another universe, your father might have never met your mother, and you wouldn’t have been born.  Since possibilities and alternatives are infinite, the amount of universes is probably infinite as well.  And speaking of infinite…       

1.) INFINITY

Infinity is a concept that, I believe, is underrated.  It fails to excite us when mysteries should excite us, and infinity is the greatest mystery of all.  We fail to understand that infinity is the epitome of the unknowable.  It is something that our human minds cannot and will never contain or grasp.  Infinity is mind-blowing if we get its significance.

I think infinity bores us because we encounter it first in a math lesson.  “A number divided by zero is infinity (N ÷ 0 = ∞).” It is associated with mathematical numbers.  Yes, primarily it is associated with numbers, and only right so, but it is distinct with other numbers.  We learn early in our schooling that numbers can never end; that, theoretically, a certain number or quantity will always find a number or quantity higher than it.  Thus, ∞ means the endlessness of numbers.  However, because of this, we treat ∞ as if it is a real number – at least, psychologically, even sometimes theoretically.  We should understand that numbers are quantity, but infinity is unquantifiable.  We treat ∞ as something greater than the largest number we can think of.  Though, this is correct, that is not the whole picture.  Infinity is not a quantity or number, because it is unquantifiable.  A number plus one will have the sum of one number greater than the original number. Infinity plus one is still infinity.  In fact, I don’t think an “infinity plus one” is applicable at all as if infinity is a number that can have a one added on it.  Infinity is unquantifiable.  Ungraspable.  Unending.  Unexplainable.  I am not even convinced on the appropriateness of using the concept of infinity in a mathematical equation. 

In fact, infinity is so big, so ungraspable, that I can’t even describe how is it that it is so ungraspable.... a human mind would explode.

However, let me use illustrations on how “big” infinity can be (though it will still fail in comparison to the actuality of it).    Example, you may know the all individual even numbers, which would mean that you know an infinite number of items. But it would also mean you don’t know a single odd number, and that would mean that you would, at the same time, be unaware of an infinite number of items.  Yup, big time headache.   Also consider the “monkeys and typewriters” theorem.  This theorem suggests that if an infinite number of monkeys were made to hit the keys of an infinite amount of typewriters in an infinite amount of time, the product would be, at some point, the complete works of William Shakespeare.  Absurd?  That's the potential of infinity.  And another way at looking (and appreciating) infinity is Hell.  Infinity makes Hell terrifying because it means eternal – never ending – burning and torment. 

And let us not forget the perfect case study in which infinity can be illustrated: God.  God is the epitome of infinity.  He’s everything what the concept of infinity is.  He transcends time and Creation that He has no beginning and no end.  He’s omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.  No words can describe him.   An eternity is not enough to completely know him.  These concepts about the bigness of God are all impossible to comprehend and imagine by the human mind.  And this just makes knowing God more exciting, because there is always something new to learn about him; He is infinite and mind-blowing – the perfect thought provoker.