Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Satan

2006-08-26T23:00:56Z

L1soul: My thanks to Moonglade

This article was originally posted to another board by Moonglade. I have cut it down significantly and tried to add proper attributions as I went. Thanks MG for letting me use this. If you see anyplace where I missed an attribution or cut something important, don't hesitate to correct it.

--[[User:L1soul|L1soul]] 16:00, 26 August 2006 (MST)

Satan

2006-08-26T22:54:57Z

L1soul: completed the editing of "Satan" by orignally written by Moonglade

'''Satan''' (a.k.a. The Devil) is the modern personification of [[evil]]. Modern [[Christian]] mythology casts Satan as an [[angel]] who defied the will of [[God]]. He was cast out of heaven with his followers and was condemned to rule over hell. He is seen as “the father of lies”, the tempter of [[Adam and Eve]], the tormenter of mankind on earth, and the torturer of mankind in hell.

But this has not always been Satan’s lot. Before modern Christianity condemned him to hell, Satan had a very different mythology associated with him.

==Definitions of Satan==
{{Quote-source|Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term "satan" (root word "s'tn") appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb "satan" which means "to oppose." The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church. They translated "satan" as "diaboloc" from which we derive our English term "devil" and "diabolic."|religioustolerance.org }}

===Satan as an Adversary===
There are several different definitions when the term 'satan' is used in early writtings. One is a person acting as an accuser or enemy. In 1 Samual 29:4, the Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. (translated "adversary" or "someone who will turn against us"). In 2 Samuel 19:22 Shime-i apologizes to King David. The King rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other (translated "adversary" or "opponent"). In 1 Kings 5:4, King Solomon is talking to Hiram, the King of Tyre. He says that now that there is neither satan nor bad luck to stop him, he can build the Temple. (translated as "adversary", "enemy", or "one who opposes"). And in 1 Kings 11:14, God raised up Hadad the Edomite as a satan against Solomon. (translated as "adversary," or "opponent").

===Satan as a Divine Messenger===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a divine messenger sent by [[God]] as an adversary. In the story of Balaam in Number 22, God appears in a dream, and tells Balaam to go with the princes of Moab to meet Balak. But when Balaam sets out the next morning on his donkey, God is angry with him for his attempt to evade God's wishes, and he sends an angel/messenger to kill Balaam. The donkey sees the angel and takes evasive actions, but the angel is invisible to Balaam, who beats the animal. The donkey asks Balaam why he had beat her three times and Balaam (who doesn't seem to realize that a [[talking donkey]] is particularly odd) replies that the donkey has mocked him. The angel then appears and explains that he has come as a satan to kill him. (translated as "one who opposes, "withstand," "adversary")

===Satan as a Devine Councilor===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a member of God's council, sort of a chief prosecutor. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan, "a supernatural evil emissary," acting on God's behalf, influences David to hold a census. The census is taken, but God becomes angry for reasons not given in the writings. God then offers David his choice of one of three punishments: a three year famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies' armies, or a plague throughout Israel. David selects the plague and God kills 70 thousand men. There is no mention of the number of women or children, or even if the 70 thousand includes women and children. In 2 Samuel 24, the identical event is described. However, this time, the text states that God influences David to hold the census, yet still becomes angry that it was done and punishes the Israelites with a plague. Some scholars consider the writings in 2 Samuel to be the original account. It is believed that when Samuel was finally edited (circa 560 BCE), the editors thought that all supernatural actions (good and bad) came from God. When Chronicles was written over a century later (circa 400 BCE), the author viewed God as operating indirectly through his helpers.

In [[Job]] 1 and 2, Satan is clearly described as one of the members of the court of heaven. Here, Satan is portrayed as a servant of God whose task it is to dutifully carry out evil deeds at God's instruction. And in Zechariah 3:1-7, Satan is again portrayed as a member of God's council, where he objects to the selection of Joshua as the high priest.

==The Origins of Hell==

Prior to the Exile, the Hebrews had no concept of Hell. There was a concept of Sheol, which is translated variously in the Hebrew Scriptures as “hell,” “grave,” and “pit.” It is clear from each context that it is not a place of eternal torment. Jacob would hardly say "No,…in mourning will I go down to [an endless hell] to my son.” Nor is it probable that Job would pray to God to “hide him in a place of endless torment,” in order to be delivered from his troubles. The only clear thing about Sheol is that this was a well-known concept amongst the ancient Israelites. It was not until the Pharisees (c. 100 BCE) that the notion of a spiritual life after death developed in any meaningful way in Jewish thought. The Pharisees, who were the forerunners of the rabbis, taught that when the Torah spoke of reward for following God's ways, the reward would be forthcoming in an afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba (world to come), as they called it.

==The Transformation of Satan==

The Protestant Christian Bible closes the Hebrew Scriptures with the book of Malachi, written circa 397 BCE. The Catholic Bible continues with seven other books called the Apocrypha. They both pick up the story again at the birth of [[Jesus]]. This gap of several centries is commonly called the "intertestamental period." By the end of the "intertestamental period" Satan had taken his place as the ruler of hell and the enemy of God and all mankind.

So what happened between 300 BCE and 33 CE to alter the previous theological ideas?

During the last three centuries before Christ's birth, the portrayal of Satan in Judaism changes. From the middle of the 5th century BCE until 53 BC and even later, the Jews picked up a number of concepts from the official religion of Babylon called Zoroastorism: specifically, the concept of angels, of Satan (Angra Manyu aka Ahriman, the God of Evil) and of the immortality of the [[soul]]. Of the three main divisions of Judaism (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees) in the 1st century BCE, the Essenes seems to have focused the most on Satan. The Zoroastrian/Persian dualism concept appears in Jewish writing: God, formerly the source of good and evil, becomes wholly good; and Satan as profoundly evil. History is suddenly viewed as a battle between them. No longer was Satan simply God's prosecuting attorney, helper, or lackey. Satan, and his demons, suddenly become humanity's greatest enemies.

In the Apocryphal texts, the Book of Tobias mentions the demon Asmodeus and the angel Raphael, betraying the Persian influence. In the Book of Enoch, the word “Satan” occurs in both singular and plural forms and, in Ecclesiasticus, he is identified with the subtle serpent of Genesis. Finally, the Book of Secrets of Enoch describes his rebellion against God and consequent expulsion from heaven. Note all these texts are not part of the officially recognized Hebrew Scriptures and are very late additions to Hebrew theology, with dates of writing ranging from 200 BCE to about 100 CE. Ironically, one of the reasons that the Protestants use for their rejection of these texts within the bible is that neither Jesus nor his followers quotes directly from them, yet the entire context of an all-evil opponent of God who falls from service and resides over Hell is taken from these late period stories.

Clearly, Jesus and his followers were familiar with these texts in the early part of the first century C.E. Mythology had completed Satan's transformation from the loyal servant of God to his most significant adversery.

==External Links==
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/ Zoroastrian Scriptures ]
* [http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor7.htm Influence of Zoroastrianism on other religions]
* [http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm The Hebrews to 1000 BCE]
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm A History of Satan]

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]

Satan

2006-08-24T00:05:58Z

L1soul: New page for the "Satan" article written by Moonglade

{{workinprogress}}

Satan (a.k.a. The Devil) is the modern personification of [[evil]]. Modern [[Christian]] mythology casts Satan as an [[angel]] who defied the will of [[God]]. He was cast out of heaven with his followers and was condemned to rule over hell. He is seen as “the father of lies”, the tempter of [[Adam and Eve]], the tormenter of mankind on earth, and the torturer of mankind in hell.

But this has not always been Satan’s lot. Before modern Christianity condemned him to hell, Satan had a very different mythology associated with him.

==The Hebrews==

Earliest recorded history calls the northern highlands area between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan River “Canaan.” Between 1800 and 1500 BCE, Semitic tribes of Hebrews left Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan, which eventually became a collection of city-states that was ruled by Egypt. The Tel-El Amarna tablets imply the presence of the hapiru (Hebrews) in Canaan during the Egyptian rule.

The Egyptian empire began to deteriorate circa 1500 BCE. As their hold in the area weakened, new invaders arrived: additional Hebrews from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (an Aegean people of Indo-European stock). Hebrew tradition tells of the Exodus, that Moses led twelve tribes from Egypt and entered (then conquered) Canaan. A kingdom (Israel) was established under Saul, who was proceeded by David.
There are no records in Egypt of such an event. The closest is the expulsion of a substantial minority group, the Hyksos, a Semitic-Asiatic people who had gained some level of control within Egypt and ruled during the Fifteenth Dynasty (1670 BCE). They were cast out by the Egyptians in 1570 BCE, who pushed them all the way to the Syrian frontier. Unfortunately, the dates don't match up well (the Exodus occurring circa 1200 BCE), but it is possible that the earlier expulsion of the Hyksos was changed by oral story-telling tradition over the years into the tale that casts a more favorable light on the ancestors of those who put the stories into writing.

To continue the Hebrew tradition, the Israelites (at this time, an allied mix of Hebrew tribes) finally defeated the Canaanites about 1125 BCE. The Philistines had established an independent state on the southern coast of Palestine (more or less, today's Gaza Strip). However, the Israelites (under King David) finally defeated them shortly after 1000 BCE.

David conquered Jerusalem (in Judah) circa 1004 BCE, making it the center of his government. He also per Hebrew tradition brought the Ark of the Covenant to the city and Jerusalem became the political and spiritual center of the Jewish people. David was succeeded by his son Solomon, who built the First Temple in Jerusalem circa 970-931 BCE.
After Solomon died (circa 970-928 BCE), Israel split into the southern Kingdom of Judah and the northern Kingdom of Israel, with Jerusalem remaining the capital of the southern Kingdom.

Much of the history given in the Hebrew Scriptures, however, does not match with archeological evidence and extant secular history records of adjacent countries, as pointed out regarding the Exodus. The 40 year wandering is not supported by archeology and the fact that with all the Egyptian military outposts, it is unlikely that they could have remained undetected (and unmolested) by the Egyptian forces. The settlement of Canaan was probably not a military conquest, but a slow process of immigration.

=The Hebrew Scriptures=

Writing among the Hebrew had developed in the tenth century BCE based on the 22-letter Phoenician alphabet of 1100 BCE, and by the end of the eighth century BCE, literacy had rapidly spread, at least among the upper-class Hebrews. Eventually, the myths of both Kingdoms were written down and comparisons were inevitable. The northern Kingdom's concept of god was known as El (also Elohim). He first appears to Abraham as "El Shaddai" (El of the Mountain). He also appears as El Elyon, or El of Bethel in other, non-canonized writings. He is portrayed as a subtle god, one who directs the affairs of men by revelation of the voice, remaining hidden from view. In the harsher southern Kingdom, the Canaanite god YHWH was transformed by the people of the land of Judah from his pagan Canaanite origins, first appearing as a cruel and vindictive entity. That harsh character later softens.

In 722 BCE the Assyrians invaded Israel, leading to the exiling of the ten “lost tribes.” Northern refugees entered Judea, bringing their concepts of El with them to Jerusalem. And the two god concepts come into open conflict with each other. The arriving Israelites with their god El, and the Judeans with their god YHWH, were abruptly required to reconcile their conceptual differences regarding “the god of Abraham.” It was at this time that the earliest mythos of the Hebrew Scriptures become set in the form that they, for the most part, have been handed down. And for the first time, with the Assyrian destruction of Israel, the Biblical record begins to match with the archaeological record.

Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem in the southern Kingdom, resisted the Assyrians with his prophet Isaiah at his side. The first attempt to create a pure monotheism, one God without an image, was conceived by Isaiah, who was extremely advanced in his views about monotheism. His concept could not tolerate other gods next to his idea of one universal God. To ensure that the populace did not return to worshipping other gods, Isaiah prompted Hezekiah to remove the bronze image of the serpent, Nechushtan, out of the Temple, and melt it down. They also removed all the lion-shaped idols, gods of the tribe of Judas, and shattered them to pieces. The Temple lost all the images and remained empty of anything but the invisible presence of YHWH. Isaiah even claimed that although YHWH preferred his Chosen People, the Israelites, he must be also the God of all other nations, because other gods simply could not exist as he saw it. The common people, however, perceived a feminine aspect of the divine, the Shekhina. The Talmud has many references to this entity, which eventually developed into a separate entity whose main function was to intercede on the behalf of her earthly children. The Hebrew Scriptures only reference this in Exodus 40 as “God's Glory.”

Two other prophets continued to develop the monotheistic concept. Habakkuk claimed that YHWH was a righteous, loving God (not the fierce volcano God of fire and war), and the God of all men on earth. There could be no war between YHWH and other gods, because no other gods could exist in this mind-set. Jeremiah went one step further with that philosophy, by focusing on the covenant and denouncing war and strife. He saw God as a loving entity, concerned about justice and peace among men. Jeremiah went as far as to beg the Israelites/Judeans not to fight the invading Babylonians, whom he also saw YHWH's children.

His attempts at peace failed dismally. Judea was conquered by the Babylonians in 597 BCE. King Nebuchadnezzar set up Zedekiah as his puppet-king over Judah and deported around 10K Hebrews to his capital. All the deportees were drawn from professionals, the wealthy, the craftsmen and (very significantly) the priests. Ordinary rural people were allowed to stay in Judah. Zedekiah rebelled, however, and Nebuchadnezzar sent another force in 588, conquering Jerusalem in 586 BCE and destroying the Temple. Nebuchadnezzar caught Zedekiah, forced him to watch the murder of his sons, then blinded him and deported him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also again deported the prominent citizens, but the number was far smaller than in 597 BCE: somewhere between 832 and 1577 people were deported. Ironically, Jeremiah's prophecy was also a bit of a failure: he predicted a 70 year exile that really only lasted 48 years.

As a sidenote, the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is speaking of Nebuchadnezzar. The text speaks of a human ruler it calls “Helel son of Shachar” which translates as “son of the morning star” and further states that this ruler will die in disrepute and his body would be buried, not in a king's sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses, and worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave. Hardly applicable to Satan. It was Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation that first used the term Lucifer. There is no way a Latin word would occur in an Aramaic text originally.

Fortunately for the Hebrews, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 539 BCE. He allowed the exiled Jews to return to Judea, where they rebuilt Jerusalem and constructed the Second Temple. Since those who had left had been upper-class, the rural people who had remained in Judah looked with suspicion on these “foreigners.” After all, these returning Hebrews, whose concept of god into a universal deity had been completely successful in Babylon, viewed YHWH far differently than the rural class who has been left behind in Judea. But the returning priest class enforced that new version of YHWH in the synagogues and the rebuilt Temple. They also while in Babylon had redacted the Torah from the earlier writings, taken from both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, and the Torah (first five books) began to gain recognition as scriptural circa 450 BCE.

The second division of the Hebrew Scriptures Nevi'im (Prophets) is comprised of Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. These writings were compiled circa 200 BCE.

The third division of the Hebrew Scriptures Ketuvim (Writings) is comprised of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel (although not all that is included in the Christian Canon), Ezra and Nehemiah, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles. It should be clarified that the separation of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles is a later Christian change to the Hebrew Scriptures. Additionally, many Christian Bibles have expanded versions of several of these books (Esther, Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Chronicles) including extra material that is not accepted as canonical in Judaism. This extra material was part of the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but was never a part of the official Hebrew Tanakh. Jews regard the additional material as apocryphal. Among Christians, there is a difference of opinion: Catholics regard this material as canonical, while many Protestant sects regard this material as apocrypha as well. The Writings were compiled, oddly enough, quite late in the game, circa 200 CE.

==Satan and the Hebrew Scriptures==

But where in these writings do we find references to satan? Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term satan (root word s'tn") appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb satan which means "to oppose." The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church and they translated satan as diabolic, from which we derive our English terms "devil" and "diabolic."

There are several different uses when the term is used. One is a person acting as an accuser or enemy. In 1 Samual 29:4, the Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. (translated "adversary" or "someone who will turn against us"). In 2 Samuel 19:22 Shime-i apologizes to King David. The King rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other (translated "adversary" or "opponent"). In 1 Kings 5:4, King Solomon is talking to Hiram, the King of Tyre. He says that now that there is neither satan nor bad luck to stop him, he can build the Temple. (translated as "adversary", "enemy", or "one who opposes"). And in 1 Kings 11:14, God raised up Hadad the Edomite as a satan against Solomon. (translated as "adversary," or "opponent").

Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a divine messenger sent by God as an adversary. The one I have sited before in the story of Balaam in Number 22 is quite clear: God appears in a dream, and tells Balaam to go with the princes of Moab to meet Balak. But when Balaam sets out the next morning on his donkey, God is angry with him for his attempt to evade God's wishes, and he sends an angel/messenger to kill Balaam. The donkey sees the angel and takes evasive actions, but the angel is invisible to Balaam, who beats the animal. The donkey asks Balaam why he had beat her three times and Balaam (who doesn't seem to realize that a talking donkey is particularly odd) replies that the donkey has mocked him. The angel then appears and explains that he has come as a satan to kill him. (translated as "one who opposes, "withstand," "adversary")

Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a member of God's council, sort of a chief prosecutor. In 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan, "a supernatural evil emissary," acting on God's behalf, influences David to hold a census. The census is taken, but God becomes angry for reasons not given in the writings. God then offers David his choice of one of three punishments: a three year famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies' armies, or a plague throughout Israel. David selects the plague (Door Number Three!) and God kills 70K men (no mention of the number of women or children, or even if the 70K includes women and children). Interestingly, in 2 Samuel 24, the identical event is described. However, this time, the text states that God influences David to hold the census, yet still becomes angry that it was done and punishes the Israelites with a plague. Some scholars consider the writings in 2 Samuel to be the original account. It is believed that when Samuel was finally edited (circa 560 BCE), the editors thought that all supernatural actions (good and bad) came from God. When Chronicles was written over a century later (circa 400 BCE), the author viewed God as operating indirectly through his helpers.

In Job 1 and 2, Satan is clearly described as one of the members of the court of heaven. I think we are all familiar with this storyline. Here, Satan is portrayed as a servant of God whose task it is to dutifully carry out evil deeds at God's instruction. And in Zechariah 3:1-7, Satan is again portrayed as a member of God's council, where he objects to the selection of Joshua as the high priest.

There are no passages within the older parts of the Hebrew Scriptures where Satan is portrayed as an evil entity, the arch-enemy of God and of humanity, cast out of “Heaven” and presiding over “Hell” with his fallen minions. At worst, he is portrayed as a henchman who dutifully carries out God's instructions. There is no dualism in these early writings between an all-good God and an all-evil Satan. Clearly, God is portrayed as performing, directly and indirectly, both kind and evil deeds. Whether plagues are sent, a flood is used to wipe all almost all of humanity, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or Lot's wife does the pillar of salt thing, all these actions are attributed to God directly. Isaiah 45:6-7 states that “…I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” Job 9:22-23 states “It is all the same; that is why I say, 'He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.' When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.” And Lamentations 3:37-38 states “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”

Prior to the Exile, the Hebrews had no concept of Hell. There was a concept of Sheol, which is translated variously in the Hebrew Scriptures as “hell,” “grave,” and “pit.” It is clear from each context that it is not a place of eternal torment. Jacob would hardly say "No,…in mourning will I go down to [an endless hell] to my son.” Nor is it probable that Job would pray to God to “hide him in a place of endless torment,” in order to be delivered from his troubles. The only clear thing about Sheol is that this was a well-known concept amongst the ancient Israelites. It was not until the Pharisees (c. 100 BCE) that the notion of a spiritual life after death developed in any meaningful way in Jewish thought. The Pharisees, who were the forerunners of the rabbis, taught that when the Torah spoke of reward for following God's ways, the reward would be forthcoming in an afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba (world to come), as they called it.

So what happened between 300 BCE and 100 BCE to alter the previous theological ideas? The Protestant Christian Bible closes the Hebrew Scriptures with the book of Malachi, written circa 397 BCE. (The Catholic Bible contains seven additional books: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees as well as those expanded texts mentioned earlier that are also not contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.) These texts are called the Apocrypha. The Christian Scriptures (whether Catholic or Protestant) open with Matthew's gospel, written per Christian tradition in 37 CE. This gap of over four centuries has traditionally been called the "intertestamental period." But modern Bible scholarship has found that reality is not quite that neat. The Book of Daniel seems to have been written circa 165 BCE in the middle of the “intertestamental” period, recounting events four centuries earlier and written as if Daniel was the author. The Book of Esther was apparently written in the 1st or 2nd century BCE. And the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel, which most biblical scholars date it to about 70 CE. Matthew came along later, circa 80 CE.

Many Jewish writings have been preserved from that time. Some were collected and form the aforementioned Apocrypha (Greek word meaning "hidden."). These books appear in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate (early Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome). Conservative Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as inerrant or inspired by God but as mentioned, the writings appear in Catholic bibles.

But during the last three centuries before Christ's birth, the portrayal of Satan in Judaism changes. From the middle of the 5th century BCE until 53 BC and even later, the Jews picked up a number of concepts from the official religion of Babylon called Zoroastorism: specifically, the concept of angels, of Satan (Angra Manyu aka Ahriman, the God of Evil) and of the immortality of the soul. Of the three main divisions of Judaism (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees) in the 1st century BCE, the Essenes seems to have focused the most on Satan. The Zoroastrian/Persian dualism concept appears in Jewish writing: God, formerly the source of good and evil, becomes wholly good; and Satan as profoundly evil. History is suddenly viewed as a battle between them. No longer was Satan simply God's prosecuting attorney, helper, or lackey. Satan, and his demons, suddenly become humanity's greatest enemies.

As for the Apocryphal texts, the Book of Tobias mentions the demon Asmodeus and the angel Raphael, betraying the Persian influence. In the Book of Enoch, the word “Satan” occurs in both singular and plural forms and, in Ecclesiasticus, he is identified with the subtle serpent of Genesis. Finally, the Book of Secrets of Enoch describes his rebellion against God and consequent expulsion from heaven. Note all these texts are not part of the officially recognized Hebrew Scriptures and are very late additions to Hebrew theology, with dates of writing ranging from 200 BCE to about 100 CE. Ironically, one of the reasons that the Protestants use for their rejection of these texts within the bible is that neither Jesus nor his followers quotes directly from them, yet the entire context of an all-evil opponent of God who falls from service and resides over Hell is taken from these late period stories. Clearly, Jesus and his followers were familiar with these texts. Enoch Chapter 52 is very similar to the “Beatitudes” of Matthew 5, casting the originality of that speech into serious doubt.

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]

Talk:Polygamy

2006-08-22T03:17:24Z

L1soul:

== Image for Page ==
I was thinking that the following might be a distant possibility for the image to represent this page. It has a Creative Commons license as long as the work is Attributed and there are no derivative works. Maybe it is not as serious as it should be. I'll let you decide.

http://flickr.com/photos/kevlar/195235014/

I guess the alternative. Is the guy with 5 girls in bikinis. (Also, Creative Commons)
http://flickr.com/photos/2rokbotoy/157483144/

Are these pictures out of bounds? [[User:Micah|Micah]] 19:55, 21 August 2006 (MST)

I vote for Vader and the Lea-ets. It could only be better if the Vader character were replaced with Jaba the Hut. I see no problem with it, but I'll leave it to the admins to decide on the appropriateness of the image. But all else being equal I'd say yes.

--[[User:L1soul|L1soul]] 20:17, 21 August 2006 (MST)

Problem of evil

2006-08-20T21:51:04Z

L1soul: changed "...denies his impotence..." to "...denies his omnipotence..."

Suppose we have the following four premises:
# [[God]] is [[omniscient]]
# God is [[omnipotent]]
# God is [[omnibenevolent]]
# [[Evil]] exists.

As David [[Hume]] wrote: {{Quote-source|Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?|Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion }}

We get the following contradiction. If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then He must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then He must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist. Dropping any one of those four premises would resolve the contradiction, but dropping #4 would require us to fundamentally redefine evil in some way, and dropping the other three would undermine the Christian concept of God.

==Counterarguments==
===Free Will===
It is often claimed that evil exists because God gave humans [[free will]]. Free will is assumed to be a greater good than the evil that they cause.

This argument fails to explain why God allows natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. These events impersonally kill millions of people, which indicates that our concept of "evil" is not necessarily tied to what people do.

Even if we define natural disasters as not being evil, there remains the fact that they occur, and that God does not prevent them or the deaths and suffering they cause. If we replace "evil" with "suffering" in the discussion above, the problem remains: either God is unaware of people's suffering, and is therefore not omniscient; or he is unable to do anything, and is therefore not omnipotent; or he is unwilling to intervene, and is therefore not omnibenevolent.

There is also the question of [[heaven]]. Heaven, being a perfect place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will?

===Tough Love===
[[Apologists]] often claim that what appears to be harmful to humans may, in fact, be for humanities good. How can we learn, the argument goes, without making our own mistakes?

The 'tough love' argument only works if God is limited in power. If god is omnipotent there is nothing he can not teach us gently that he can teach us harshly. If he is benevolent than he would never choose to teach us a harsh lesson when it could be taught, with exactly the same impact, gently.

===Redefining Benevolence===
One way to redefine the term 'benevolence' is to site limited human perspective in space and time. A parent might spank a child for running into traffic, or take a child to the doctor for painful, life saving, injections. It is only in the limited, child's-eye-view that these things are malevolent.

As with the "tough love" argument, this view of God implicitly denies his omnipotence or, at least, his omnisciences. What kind of parent purposely takes his child for a surgery which he knows the child does not need or want?

Another way to redefine 'benevolence' is to argue that God may be benevolent to specific humans or to non-humans. Our entire history may exist for the positive influence it may have on aliens we have not met. We may be actors in a puppet show that makes these beings happy. After all, it is perfectly possible for benevolent humans to play comically violent video games with their delighted children.

But this argument is sophistry. To win the argument the apologist defines a God that neither we nor he would have much reason to worship. For example, if the creatures in a violent "Run and Gun" video game were to gain self awareness, would we expect them to view us as benevolent beings worthy of their love and trust as we blast them into electronic oblivion?

And, if God is not benevolent toward humans, than what differentiates him from a human sociopath or from the [[Devil]]?

The problem of evil must be taken up in the context of humanity. No other context would make a God useful to humans in any realistic way. A God that is benevolent to others at lethal expense to humans is, by definition, malevolent, or at least indifferent, toward humans. It is an unusual apologist indeed who believes in this type of God.

===Redefining Evil===
As with "benevolence", "evil" can be redefined. What is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. In fact, anything that God chooses to do can be construed as "good". Using this argument, "evil" can not exist in any definable terms when applied to God.

Besides the arguments already used in the "Tough Love" response (an all powerful God would have no reason even to appear evil) here, the apologist treads dangerously close to [[ethical relativism]]. We know from information in the bible that ethical rules have changed at the will of God. Is God, then, a relativist?

If the answer is that God is following an ethical plan, than the apologist opens himself up to the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]. If the answer is that God changes as he sees fit and anything that god declares as good is good, than what is the difference between being a relativist and following a relativist God?

When an apologist tries to redefine the premises of "the problem of evil" he finds himself in a morass of relativism, but when he tries to work with the premises he finds himself unwittingly limiting the unlimited God of his religion.

==External Links==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil]
* [http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/John_Wright/Hume%20Dialogue%2010.htm Hume and the Evidential Problem of Evil]
{{Def-word|sophistry}}
[[Category: Arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category: Empirical arguments]]

Banana argument

2006-08-20T19:58:23Z

L1soul: added internal link

The banana argument is a variation on the [[argument from design]], saying that some things are the way they are because they were designed especially for our pleasure and comfort.

Note that the banana:

# Is shaped for human hand
# Has non-slip surface
# Has outward indicators of inward content:
#: Green-too early,
#: Yellow-just right,
#: Black-too late.
# Has a tab for removal of wrapper
# Is perforated on wrapper
# Bio-degradable wrapper
# Is shaped for human mouth
# Has a point at top for ease of entry
# Is pleasing to taste buds
# Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

==Counter-Arguments==

# The bananas that we eat today were specifically bred by humans to be a size that we like. Natural bananas are much smaller. This is a bit like [[Douglas Adams]]' analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it's in was perfectly designed to contain the puddle.
# The fact that a banana fits perfectly in our hand says a lot more about the [[evolution]] of hands than it does about bananas. The human hand is very versatile, able to change shape enough to hold a tiny pebble or a large basketball. Lots of the things we don't eat also fit in our hands.
# We eat all kinds of food. The coconut is also enjoyed by humans as food yet, apart from having a non-slip surface (like almost all objects) and being pleasant to eat (like most food), it holds none of the other properties of the banana. A cow, which some might say is far more delicious than a banana, is fairly difficult to hold in the hand when in its natural form. Like many other foods, cows also require some very particular preparation before eating otherwise some nasty diseases can result. The diseases come from bacteria that theists would also say were created by God.
# Speaking of bacteria, the number of objects in the universe that are inedible and even dangerous to humans far outweighs the number of objects that are tasty.
# Far from being proof that the entire world is custom made for our pleasure, this seems to be a case of [[cherry picking]] certain features to find one good example.

==History==

* The banana argument was presented by [[Ray Comfort]] as "the atheist's worst nightmare" the [[Way of the Master]] episode entitled "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit-Atheism]]".

* Ray Comfort conceded that this is a bad argument in episode #103 of the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show.

* The argument was not original to Ray Comfort; somebody please find more information for this article.

==External Links==
* [http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk&search=atheist%20banana Video clip of Ray Comfort presenting the banana argument]
* [http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com/2006/05/ray-comfort-concedes-banana-argument.html Hellbound Alleee announces that Comfort conceded the banana argument]
* [http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html The banana argument in written form, presented completely without intentional irony]

[[Category: Arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category: Teleological arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments from design]]

Cherry picking

2006-08-20T19:55:34Z

L1soul: New page for "Cherry Picking" in the category: Logical fallacies.

[[Cherry picking]] refers to the practice of choosing quotes and research which supports ones views while ignoring credible quotes and research, in the same branch of study, which undermines or contradicts ones views.

==Example of Cherry picking==

A christian pacifist might quote the biblical sermon on the mount:

{{Quote-source|But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.|Matthew 5:39}}

while ignoring the Christian marines favorite bible quote:

{{Quote-source|Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.|Matthew 10:34}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2006-08-20T19:04:49Z

L1soul: Remove Polygamy from the request list.

Got a page that you would love to see an article about, but you don't have the time or knowledge to write it yourself? Put a request here and somebody may do your work for you!

For those who are editing, don't forget to check the [[Special:Wantedpages| Wanted Pages]] list.

==Religious nut bios==
* [[James Dobson]]
* [[Roy Moore]]
* [[Fred Phelps]]
* [[Ralph Reed]]
* [[Kent Hovind]]

==Wacky Bible stories==
* [[Biblical laws]] (You know... stoning unruly kids to death, selling your daughter into slavery, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics...)

==Religious practices==
* [[Communion]]

==Politics==
* [[School prayer]]
* [[Gay marriage]]
* [[Faith-based initiatives]]

==Apologetics==
There have got to be plenty of arguments for the existence of God, or for the veracity of the Bible.

==Arguments against the existence of God==
Are there any arguments (good or bad) against the existence of God that haven't been written up?

[[Category: Iron Chariots]]

Polygamy

2006-08-20T19:03:37Z

L1soul: New Page outlining Polygamy in the bible.

'''Polygamy''' is the general term for a marriage that includes one spouse of one sex and multiple mates of the opposite sex. Polygamy is divided into polygyny, in which a man takes multiple wives, and polyandry, in which a woman takes multiple husbands.

Polygamy in its common usage generally refers to polygyny, but for clarity’s sake this article will use these, more restrictive, terms.

==Polygamy in the Bible==

Any fair reading of the bible will attest to the fact that polygyny is an acceptable form of marriage. The Old Testament sets forth rules concerning the rights and responsibilities accorded to the partners in a polygynous marriage. Although there is a passage or two that can be used to question the practice, the New Testament does not condemn polygynous marriage.

As far back as the forth century C.E. polygynous marriages had fallen out of favor in the Christian community even though the practice was never condemned by the bible. Saint Augustine met the problem by acknowledging the practice in the Old Testament, but relying on contemporary laws and practices to condemn its continued application:

{{Quote-source| [While it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful…. Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living| The Good of Marriage (chapter 15, paragraph 17}}

Polyandrous marriages, on the other hand, appear to be consistently condemned. This should come as no surprise. At best, women are treated as second class citizens in the bible. At worst they are treated as reasonably valuable property.

==Polygamy in the Mormon Church==

For a short time polygyny was an acceptable form of marriage among Mormons. It was revealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. as “Celestial Marriage”. By 1905 the Mormon Church was under considerable financial and political pressure to stop this practice. At this time, the Mormon leaders issued a manifesto, in fact the second of its kind, making it clear that Mormons my not practice polygamy and remain a part of the church.

Mormons no longer recognize any sect that practices polygamy as part of the body of the church. Practitioners of polygamy are routinely excommunicated.

==Polygamy and apologetics==

Modern biblical arguments for and against the various forms of polygamy are a study in Christian [[cherry picking]].

Those Christian who approve of polygyny will site a long list of polygynists in the bible, some of whom received their wives at [[God]]’s command. King David, Abraham, and Gideon, all had more than one wife and they certainly were not alone in the practice. It is clear, supporters might add, that prohibitions against adultery apply to sexual relations outside the bounds of ones own marriage, not to sexual relations with multiple, married, partners.

If they also disapprove of polyandry they might site the many Old and New Testament prohibitions against women having sexual relations with anyone but her, one, husband.

Those Christians who disapprove of polygyny will site the examples of Adam and Eve, God’s original marriage, Mary and Joseph, the custodial parents of Jesus, and Noah and his three sons, each of whom had one wife. They will point to the few biblical passages that can be construed as favoring monogamy as reasons to accept only monogamy as a legitimate form of marriage. Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18, all recount the same event in which Jesus condemns divorce and defines it as adultery if the divorced person marries “another”.

Those Christians who approve of polyandry must work considerably harder. There are no passages that expressly approve of this practice. However, language being what it is, some passages can be stretched to cover the marriage of multiple men to one woman. Matthew 22:23-30 makes it clear that, at the time of resurrection, a widowed woman who had remarried would be sinless even though she now had two living husbands. 1 Timothy 3:12, with a great deal of latitude, can be construed as permitting Deacons of the church to practice polyandry.

Polygamy, as with slavery, food restrictions, accumulation of wealth, and many other topics, is open to interpretation in the Christian community. By choosing just the right passages, interpreted just the right way, any Christian sect can claim that God, thru the bible, approves of their way of life.

==External Links==
* [http://www.truthbearer.org/ Truth Bearers] - A “Poly-positive” Christian organization
* [http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?] - A monogamous answer to polygamy in The Bible
* [http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/Bibleindex.html#Summary/ Human Sexuality in The Bible]
{{Def-word|polygamy}} {{Def-word|polygyny}} {{Def-word|Polyandry}}

[[Category: The Bible]]

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2006-08-19T19:50:52Z

L1soul: Removed the link to Elish.

Got a page that you would love to see an article about, but you don't have the time or knowledge to write it yourself? Put a request here and somebody may do your work for you!

For those who are editing, don't forget to check the [[Special:Wantedpages| Wanted Pages]] list.

==Religious nut bios==
* [[James Dobson]]
* [[Roy Moore]]
* [[Fred Phelps]]
* [[Ralph Reed]]
* [[Kent Hovind]]

==Wacky Bible stories==
* [[Biblical laws]] (You know... stoning unruly kids to death, selling your daughter into slavery, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics...)

==Religious practices==
* [[Polygamy]]
* [[Communion]]

==Politics==
* [[School prayer]]
* [[Gay marriage]]
* [[Faith-based initiatives]]

==Apologetics==
There have got to be plenty of arguments for the existence of God, or for the veracity of the Bible.

==Arguments against the existence of God==
Are there any arguments (good or bad) against the existence of God that haven't been written up?

[[Category: Iron Chariots]]

Elisha

2006-08-19T19:48:51Z

L1soul: New page recounting the story of Elisha and the two bears.

In the [[Bible]] Elisha is among the most mighty of prophets. He is mentored by the prophet Elija who, according to the bible, did not die but ascended directly to heaven. Elisha is second only to [[Jesus]] in [[miracle]] working. Among his miracles are the raising of the dead, parting the waters of the Jordan river, feeding 100 men on a few loaves of bread and a few ears of grain.

Elisha is generally kind to those who follow him. He helps poverty stricken widows, heals a leper, and removes the taint of salt from a spring in Jericho. He is also harsh with his enemies. Through him, [[God]] counsels a scorched earth policy during Israel's war with the Moabites and, when a servant is larcenous, Elisha curses him and his offspring with leprosy.

Although Elisha is not taken bodily into heaven, after he dies, his bones still have the power to raise a man from death.

==The Story of the Bears==

Early in his career Elisha does a remarkably outrageous thing. After clearing the brackish waters of a spring in Jericho, Elisha sets out for the town of Bethel. On his way he is met by a group of children who make fun of his baldness. Elisha miraculously calls up two female bears to Maul forty two of the Children. After which he continues on his journey.

{{Bluebox|The King James version of the bible tells the story in 2 Kings 2:23 - 2:25:

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

2:25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.}}

==The significants of the Story of the Bears==

There are a large number of outrageous acts recounted in the bible that are carried out by heroes, kings, and prophets. But these three verses are particularly disturbing. The extreme punishment laid upon children for the minor offense of an insult would be worthy of a Monty Python comedy routine if it were not reported with such horrific seriousness.

The story represents a difficult problem for [[apologists]]. They are presented with a man of God who can clearly perform powerful miracles; a wise man who counsels the kings of Israel for decades and who speaks for God often; a man who clearly acts at the will of God both before and after this outrage. Presumably, a man of such power has many options at his command when he is confronted by insults from children. The option he chose is to ask God to send bears to maul the youths. God complied. 42 children were mauled and, considering the tender mercy of bears, probably killed.

How can this act be squared with a benevolent God? How can this act be seen as ethical?

==Apologists and the Story of the Bears==

* '''It is just a story''' - Apologists who are not also inerrontists often argue that certain stories in the bible are educational, rather than factual, in nature. Counter apologist are left to wonder which stories are true and how one tells the difference between one and the other. The story of the bears includes no obvious introductory clue that this particular set of verses is a parable about misbehaving children rather than a story of mass murder committed by a prophet of God.
* '''Elisha was afraid''' - It is certainly possible for a lone stranger to feel threated by a large group of insult hurling people. Even if they were children, Elisha may have believed his life was in danger. This ignores several things we know about Elisha, God, and miracles. We know that Elisha, being one of the most powerful miracle workers in the bible, had many other, non-violent, options at his command. We know that God has protected his followers, including but not limited to Jesus, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego, from harm without the use of violence to adults, let alone children. And we know that God, in the person of Jesus, made it clear that harming children was a terrible evil. With all this in mind, it seems unlikely that Elisha was afraid, and, if he was afraid, it is unlikely that his choice of defense could be squared with a sane man or, by granting this miraculous defense, a benevolent God.
* '''Elisha was human and he made a mistake''' - People do make mistakes and over react. However, we know that God could have refused to perform this miracle for Elisha. He denies his follower's requests rather often in the bible and, apparently, in modern day life. God did not punish Elisha for this outrage. In fact, Elisha's powers become more formidable in the years after the mauling of the children. There is no indication that Elisha felt bad about this episode. He could have walked among these children, healing their wounds and raising the dead. Instead, he continues on his way to Mount Carmel. Again, we can not square this behavior with a sane person or a benevolent God.
* '''Anything God does is good''' - This argument leaves the Apologist in a tentative position. We know that God does not like murder, it's one of the ten commandments, and he does not like harming children, he says so in the guise of Jesus, and, yet, he appears to approve of mauling unruly kids. Given this, the apologist must accept one of several options. God is an [[ethical relativist]], a [[situational ethicist]], limited in power, or non-benevolent. The story of the bears is an excellent illustration of the [[Problem of evil]] faced by apologists.
* '''It is mistranslated''' - Some apologists argue that the word "children" has been mistranslated and should be translated as "youths" or even "young soldiers in training". Elisha can than be excused for his fright and violent reaction. Although this ignores the fact that Elisha still had many nonviolent options available to him, it makes the story slightly less outrageous. But, in this case, the apologists are certainly wrong. The original text uses the words "Na`ar" and "Qatan" to describe the children. "Na'ar" translates to "youth" or "boy" or "young man". The last definition can be made to fit the apologist's purposes. However, "Qatan", which modifies, "Na'ar" means "small", "little", or "very young". The translation is clear; the people that gathered to make fun of Elisha were children.
* '''It is mistranslated (part two)''' - Any apologist who also believes in the inerrancy of his particular version of the bible can not make this argument. A mistranslation by definition is an error. An inerrant bible can not contain mistranslations.

==External Links==

* [http://www.nisbett.com/people/bp-elisha.htm Life of Elisha Sans Bears]
* [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06996&version=kjv Definition of Qatan]
* [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05288&version=kjv Definition of Na'ar]
* [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html The translation defense]
* [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html The Story of the Bears in the King James Bible]

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]

User:L1soul

2006-08-14T00:37:51Z

L1soul:

l1soul is the user ID for Edward McGann of Harrisburg Pennsylvania. Raised in an Irish Catholic family I considered the priesthood in my youth. Before making such a step, of course, I reread the bible for information rather than inspiration. I was taken by surprise at its general horror and ineptitude. Almost every page clashed with my moral and rational belief system. Several years of self study in comparative religion lead me to a life long love of research and disdain for religion. If one wishes to split philosophical hairs I am an agnostic or 'soft atheist'. However, since agnosticism has a 'wishy-washy' connotation I've taken to calling myself an Atheist. It's a nice solid word that leaves little to quibble about.

I collect modern first edition/first printings. Rex Stout, Ursula K. Le Guin, Kurt Vonnegut, Bertrand Russell, and a single John Stewart Mill are the backbone of my collection, but I like to buy new authors as well. I've made no 'great discoveries', I even passed up on "Harry Potter" with a smirk, but I enjoy the thought that I am helping new artists achieve their dreams.

I don't smoke, I rarely drink to excess, I chase women but rarely catch them, and I think that the people who invented coffee and cherry cheese cake are as close to gods as we're ever going to see.

Problem of evil

2006-08-13T22:23:02Z

L1soul: Added arguments "Tough Love", "Redefining Evil", "Redefining Benevolent". Add links and a quote by Hume.

Suppose we have the following four premises:
# [[God]] is [[omniscient]]
# God is [[omnipotent]]
# God is [[omnibenevolent]]
# [[Evil]] exists.

As David [[Hume]] wrote: {{Quote-source|Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?|Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion }}

We get the following contradiction. If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then He must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then He must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist. Dropping any one of those four premises would resolve the contradiction, but dropping #4 would require us to fundamentally redefine evil in some way, and dropping the other three would undermine the Christian concept of God.

==Counterarguments==
===Free Will===
It is often claimed that evil exists because God gave humans [[free will]]. Free will is assumed to be a greater good than the evil that they cause.

This argument fails to explain why God allows natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. These events impersonally kill millions of people, which indicates that our concept of "evil" is not necessarily tied to what people do.

Even if we define natural disasters as not being evil, there remains the fact that they occur, and that God does not prevent them or the deaths and suffering they cause. If we replace "evil" with "suffering" in the discussion above, the problem remains: either God is unaware of people's suffering, and is therefore not omniscient; or he is unable to do anything, and is therefore not omnipotent; or he is unwilling to intervene, and is therefore not omnibenevolent.

There is also the question of [[heaven]]. Heaven, being a perfect place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will?

===Tough Love===
[[Apologists]] often claim that what appears to be harmful to humans may, in fact, be for humanities good. How can we learn, the argument goes, without making our own mistakes?

The 'tough love' argument only works if God is limited in power. If god is omnipotent there is nothing he can not teach us gently that he can teach us harshly. If he is benevolent than he would never choose to teach us a harsh lesson when it could be taught, with exactly the same impact, gently.

===Redefining Benevolence===
One way to redefine the term 'benevolence' is to site limited human perspective in space and time. A parent might spank a child for running into traffic, or take a child to the doctor for painful, life saving, injections. It is only in the limited, child's-eye-view that these things are malevolent.

As with the "tough love" argument, this view of God implicitly denies his impotence or, at least, his omnisciences. What kind of parent purposely takes his child for a surgery which he knows the child does not need or want?

Another way to redefine 'benevolence' is to argue that God may be benevolent to specific humans or to non-humans. Our entire history may exist for the positive influence it may have on aliens we have not met. We may be actors in a puppet show that makes these beings happy. After all, it is perfectly possible for benevolent humans to play comically violent video games with their delighted children.

But this argument is sophistry. To win the argument the apologist defines a God that neither we nor he would have much reason to worship. For example, if the creatures in a violent "Run and Gun" video game were to gain self awareness, would we expect them to view us as benevolent beings worthy of their love and trust as we blast them into electronic oblivion?

And, if God is not benevolent toward humans, than what differentiates him from a human sociopath or from the [[Devil]]?

The problem of evil must be taken up in the context of humanity. No other context would make a God useful to humans in any realistic way. A God that is benevolent to others at lethal expense to humans is, by definition, malevolent, or at least indifferent, toward humans. It is an unusual apologist indeed who believes in this type of God.

===Redefining Evil===
As with "benevolence", "evil" can be redefined. What is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. In fact, anything that God chooses to do can be construed as "good". Using this argument, "evil" can not exist in any definable terms when applied to God.

Besides the arguments already used in the "Tough Love" response (an all powerful God would have no reason even to appear evil) here, the apologist treads dangerously close to [[ethical relativism]]. We know from information in the bible that ethical rules have changed at the will of God. Is God, then, a relativist?

If the answer is that God is following an ethical plan, than the apologist opens himself up to the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]. If the answer is that God changes as he sees fit and anything that god declares as good is good, than what is the difference between being a relativist and following a relativist God?

When an apologist tries to redefine the premises of "the problem of evil" he finds himself in a morass of relativism, but when he tries to work with the premises he finds himself unwittingly limiting the unlimited God of his religion.

==External Links==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil]
* [http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/John_Wright/Hume%20Dialogue%2010.htm Hume and the Evidential Problem of Evil]
{{Def-word|sophistry}}
[[Category: Arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments against the existence of God]]
[[Category: Empirical arguments]]

Robert Green Ingersoll

2006-07-29T18:41:38Z

L1soul:

'''''He stripped off the armor of institutional friendships'''''
'''''To dedicate his soul'''''
'''''To the terrible deities of Truth and Beauty.'''''
-- Edgar Lee Masters, "Poem for R. G. Ingersoll"

'''Robert Green Ingersoll''' (August 11, 1833 – July 21, 1899) was a nineteenth century orator, lawyer, and [[agnostic]]. In a time before pay per view television and motion pictures, Ingersoll commanded premium fees for speaking engagements. Although Ingersoll spoke on the subjects important to his age, he earned the sobriquet "The Great Agnostic" with lectures titled “Superstition”, “Some Mistakes of Moses”, “The Gods”, and the famous “Why I Am an Agnostic”.

As he grew richer and more famous he became a friend and inspiration to the celebrities of his day. Among those people touched by Ingersoll's oratory were Walt Witman, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison and many others. Mark Twain once remarked of Ingersoll, "What an organ human speech is when employed by a master".

Ingersoll's unwavering defense of Science, Humanism, and agnosticism make him one of the great heroes of the free thought movement. His speeches and essays are a "must read" for any serious student of anti-apologetics.

==General Biographical Information==

Robert Green Ingersoll was born in Dresden, New York on August 11, 1833. His father, John, was an itinerant minister who gave fiery abolitionist sermons. His mother, Mary, died when Robert was one and a half years old. He had four siblings, Ruth, John, Mary Jane, Ebon and Clark.

Because of his family's constant traveling Ingersoll was poorly educated until he was enrolled in school at the age of 15. He would later say that his real education began when, idling at a cobblers shop, he happened to pick up and read a book of poetry by Robert Burns. Having learned to love education he spent a short time as an itinerant teacher in Illinois and Tennessee.

Eventually he settled in Peoria, Illinois where, with his brother Ebon, he apprenticed in law and stood the bar. It was at this point that Ingersoll became active in politics and began to forge his reputation as one of the greatest orators of his day.

Robert met his wife, Eva Amelia Parker, while trying a case in Groveland, IL. Amelia was the daughter of a well-to-do family and some credit her with Roberts introduction to agnosticism. Amelia and Robert would have two daughters, Eva Robert in 1863 and Maud Robert in 1864.

Although he originally opposed Lincoln's candidacy, when the civil war broke out Ingersoll mustered a regiment to fight with the union army. A Colonel of the regiment, Robert served under General Prentiss. He saw devastating action at the battle of Shiloh. He was appointed Chief of Cavalry after several other engagements, but was eventually captured by the south. He was offered release if he resigned his commission, not an uncommon practice at the time, which he did.

At home he began to secure his fortune and his reputation as a lawyer and an orator. He acted as an attorney for the rail roads and as the defense attorney in many criminal cases. Among his most famous successes was as the defense attorney in the "Star Route Scandal", a federal case in which the defendants were charged with defrauding the government in the handling, or mishandling, of postal routes. Among his most important failures was the defense of C.B. Reynolds on charges of Blasphemy. Reynolds was found guilty but, because of Ingersoll's spirited defense, Reynolds was levied a 'wrist slap' fine and blasphemy laws were rarely prosecuted again.

Ingersoll served as Illinois' first Attorney General and was active in politics for most of his life. He campaigned for many republican candidates, helped James Garfield win his presidential bid, and managed the successful congressional campaign for his brother Ebon. His presidential nominating speech for James G. Blaine, "The Plumed Knight Speech", set the standard for political oratory in his day. Robert was offered the chance to run for Governor of Illinois. But, knowing he would have to ameliorate his agnostic and humanistic opinions, he refused to run writing:

''"I have in my composition that which I have declared to the world as my views upon religion. My position I would not, under any circumstances, not even for my life, seem to renounce. I would rather refuse to be President of the United States than to do so. My religious belief is my own. It belongs to me, not to the State of Illinois. I would not smother one sentiment of my heart to be the Emperor of the round world."''

After a long career as a lawyer and orator, Ingersoll died at the age of 65 of heart deceases while staying with his daughter's family at Dobbs Ferry-on-Hudson, New York. According the Ingersoll biographer, Herman E. Kittredge, after a day of feeling ill ''"Mrs Ingersoll said: "Why, Papa, your tongue is coated -- I must give you some medicine." He looked up at her with a smile and said, "I am better now," and, as he did so, closed his eyes...Ingersoll was dead."''

Today Robert Ingersoll's birthplace in Dresden, New York is maintained as a historic monument.

==A Man of His Times==

It must be remembered that Robert Green Ingersoll was a man of his times. Although his positions were enlightened for his day, many of his ideas would strike modern readers as deeply offensive. He was a staunch abolitionist but did not believe in racial equality. Even as he argued that the law must apply equally to all men regardless of race or religion, he maintained that former slaves should be moved to a separate homeland.

His eloquent defense of women's suffrage did not change his opinion that women where the back bone of home life. It is unlikely that Ingersoll could have imagined the working women of today.

Ingersoll believed in the capitalism of his day and felt that work was among the highest of human values. A large portion of his wealth came from his enormously successful defense of the railroad "robber Barron's". This included loop-hole-legal-wrangling that deprived many farmers of their land for the good of the railroad's rights-of-way.

Although Ingersoll was connected to some humanist and atheist organizations, it is unclear how much of his wealth was spent to support these groups.

Robert Ingersoll's eloquent defense of humanism, science, and agnosticism make him deserving of great respect in the non-religious community. But he was a human being, with all the flaws and foibles of our species, and very definitely a man of his times.

==Quotes==

The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive, and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies forever.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Crumbling Creeds"''

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)''

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind?
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"''

An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"''

The old lady who said there must be a devil, else how could they make pictures that looked exactly like him, reasoned like a trained theologian -- like a doctor of divinity.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, from "Superstition" (1898)''

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the star-less night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, from "A Reply To The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D."''

But honest men do not pretend to know; they are candid and sincere; they love the truth; they admit their ignorance, and they say, "We do not know."
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Superstition" (1898)''

The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To Dr. Lyman Abbott"''

In all ages hypocrites, called priests, have put crowns on the heads of thieves, called kings.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll (1884), quoted from Herman E. Kittredge, A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll, Chapter XII''

The churches have no confidence in each other. Why? Because they are acquainted with each other.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references''

It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Which Way?" (1884)''

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, discussing the practice of not allowing atheists to give testimony in court: "In most of the States of this Union I could not give testimony. Should a man be murdered before my eyes I could not tell a jury who did it." -- ''quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references''

The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.
--'' Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)''

==External Links==

* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm Qoutes by Robert Igersoll]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/newton_baker/intimate_view.html Robert G. Ingersoll -- An Intimate View], by I. Newton Baker, A.M.
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/ the complete works of Robert Ingersoll]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/herman_kittredge/bio_ingersoll/index.shtml A comprehensive biography]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Category talk:Anthropic arguments

2006-07-28T00:07:27Z

L1soul:

As this is a category, it should probably contain a one or two sentence summary and the bulk of the content should be moved to one or more article pages which include a link to this category. Even an actual article called "Anthropic Arguments" would be fine - but we should avoid having major content in "category" page. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:17, 26 July 2006 (MST)

I also added a category link for cosmological arguments...that should remain on this category page, even after moving the content, as all anthropic arguments are subcategories of the cosmological. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:22, 26 July 2006 (MST)

: I fixed it for you: [[Anthropic principle]] --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 21:26, 26 July 2006 (MST)

Thanks guys. Sorry for putting you thru all that trouble. --[[User:L1soul|L1soul]] 17:07, 27 July 2006 (MST)

Category:Anthropic arguments

2006-07-27T02:38:36Z

L1soul:

The anthropic principal simply states that there are several universal constants and that these constants take on their values according the requirement that carbon based life can evolve at some point during the universe's history. The universe must be old enough that this has already occurred.

Brandon Carter, the British Cosmologist who proposed this principal in 1976, has gone further by stating that “the Universe ''must'' have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”

Some religious people and organizations have interpreted this to mean that the universe has been "fine tuned" for human life by an outside intelligence.

The argument can be summed up as follows:

The probability that each of these constants have lined up in a "life friendly" wya, without the intervention of an outside intelligence, are astronomically small. Astronomer and Minister Hugh Ross counts more the 100 constants at a probability of about one chance in 10 to the power of 138 against their lining up as they have in our universe. With such a low probability of a "life friendly" universe, the only reasonable explanation for our existence is that God has "fine Tuned" these attributes specifically to accommodate human life.

==Variations on a Theme==

There are two major variations on the anthropic principal, "strong" and "weak". The strong anthropic principal (SAP) can also be divided into two other variations, "participatory" and "Final".

# '''The weak anthropic principal (WAP): ''' "The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or in time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence." (Steven Hawking. A Brief History of Time)
# '''The strong anthropic principal (SAP):''' This form states that a universe "must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)
# '''The participatory anthropic principle (PAP):''' This form states that "Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)
#''' The final anthropic principle (FAP):''' This form states that intelligences must evolve within a universe and that once evolved will not die out.

The FAP has also been dubbed "the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP)" by author and skeptic Martin Gardner.

==Counter-arguments==

# The AP is an unproven speculation that reveals mankind's egocentrism. Douglas Adams, the humorist and atheist, once said "It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning— I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer— A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly… I mean really precise isn’t it?… It must have been made to have me in it.'"
# Assuming that the universal constants had to end up somewhere, the chances of them ending up at any one setting may be high, but the chances of them landing at some random setting is 100 percent. Since any random "roll of the dice" must end with some result, all results are equally possible or impossible. Human life may have evolved because of a lucky roll of the dice.
# The underlying principals of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principals, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.
# It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.
# It is unknown whether this is the only iteration of "The Universe". If other universes exist or if this universe has oscillated through a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, the universal constants may have been reset many times. Given enough universes and/or Bangs, our "life friendly" settings would inevitably occur.
# The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simple exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiments possibilities have not collapse into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence. It would simple exist in an unobserved state.
# Most physicists do not accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead they view 'wave form collapse' and 'superpositioning' as extremely useful and accurate description of poorly understood processes.
# With the SAP, apologists are positing a "God of the Gaps". The SAP and its variants take as fact what most cosmologists take as speculation. Cosmologists are making highly educated guesses about how the universe works. No one currently knows how the Universe started or what underpins it. This gap in our knowledge may provide a place for a god to exist, but humankind has examined other holes into which God was suppose to have climbed. In each case we have found nothing there but nature. It is a good bet that this gap houses fascinating things, but no God.

==External Links==
''Apologist talk about the AP:''
* [http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Karlow-Beware!.htm The Anthropic Cosmological Principle: Apologists and Homilists Beware!], by Edwin A. Karlow, PhD
* [http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html Anthropic Principle: The Design Is In The Details]

''Skeptics talk about the AP:''
* [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6361530 The anthropic principle and the big bang: natural

or supernatural?]
* [http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism]

''Some information about Quantum Mechanics:''
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat Schrödinger's cat]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation Copenhagen interpretation]
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Category:Anthropic arguments

2006-07-27T02:28:07Z

L1soul:

The anthropic principal simply states that there are several universal constants and that these constants take on their values according the requirement that carbon based life can evolve at some point during the universe's history. The universe must be old enough that this has already occurred.

Brandon Carter, the British Cosmologist who proposed this principal in 1976, has gone further by stating that “the Universe ''must'' have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”

Some religious people and organizations have interpreted this to mean that the universe has been "fine tuned" for human life by an outside intelligence.

The argument can be summed up as follows:

The probability that each of these constants have taken on the values required for intelligent life to evolve, without the intervention of an outside intelligence, are astronomical. Astronomer and Minister Hugh Ross counts more the 100 constants at a probability of about one chance in 10 to the power of 138 against their lining up as they have in our universe. With such a low probability of a "life friendly" universe, the only reasonable explanation for our existence is that God has "fine Tuned" these attributes specifically to accommodate human life.

==Variations on a Theme==

There are two major variations on the anthropic principal, "strong" and "weak". The strong anthropic principal (SAP) can also be divided into two other variations, "participatory" and "Final".

# '''The weak anthropic principal (WAP): ''' "The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or in time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence." (Steven Hawking. A Brief History of Time)
# '''The strong anthropic principal (SAP):''' This form states that a universe "must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage of its history." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)
# '''The participatory anthropic principle (PAP):''' This form states that "Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)
#''' The final anthropic principle (FAP):''' This form states that intelligences must evolve within a universe and that once evolved will not die out.

The FAP has also been dubbed "the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP)" by author and skeptic Martin Gardner.

==Counter-arguments==

# The AP is an unproven speculation that reveals mankind's egocentrism. Douglas Adams, the humorist and atheist, once said "It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning— I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer— A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly… I mean really precise isn’t it?… It must have been made to have me in it.'"
# Assuming that the universal constants had to end up somewhere, the chances of them ending up at any one setting may be high, but the chances of them landing at some random setting is 100 percent. Since any random "roll of the dice" must end with some result, all results are equally possible or impossible. Human life may have evolved because of a lucky roll of the dice.
# The underlying principals of the universe are not known. Without knowing these principals, applying odds to the settings of the Universal constants is disingenuous. Since we do not know how many 'settings' are possible for each constant we cannot assign valid odds for different 'settings'.
# It can be shown that the chances of a universe having "life friendly" universal constants, high though they may be, are lower than the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator. As Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys point out in their paper "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism" a self referential loop occurs when a
supernatural entity is assumed as a creator. Each iteration of the loop decreases the chances of a supernatural entity's involvement in the settings of the universal constant.
# It is unknown whether this is the only iteration of "The Universe". If other universes exist or if this universe has oscillated through a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, the universal constants may have been reset many times. Given enough universes and/or Bangs, our "life friendly" settings would inevitably occur.
# The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simple exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiments possibilities have
not collapse into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence, it would simple exist in an unobserved state.
# Most physicists do not accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead they view 'wave form collapse' and 'superpositioning' as extremely useful and accurate description of poorly understood processes.
# With the SAP, apologists are positing a "God of the Gaps". The SAP and its variants take as fact what most cosmologists take as speculation. Cosmologists are making highly educated guesses about how the universe works. No one currently knows how the Universe started or what underpins it. This gap in our knowledge may provide a place for a god to exist, but humankind has examined other holes into which God was suppose to have climbed. In each case we have found nothing there but nature. It is a good bet that this gap houses fascinating things, but no God.

==External Links==
''Apologist talk about the AP:''
* [http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Karlow-Beware!.htm The Anthropic Cosmological Principle: Apologists and Homilists Beware!], by Edwin A. Karlow, PhD
* [http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html Anthropic Principle: The Design Is In The Details]

''Skeptics talk about the AP:''
* [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6361530 The anthropic principle and the big bang: natural

or supernatural?]
* [http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism]

''Some information about Quantum Mechanics:''
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat Schrödinger's cat]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation Copenhagen interpretation]
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Noah's ark

2006-07-23T21:42:02Z

L1soul:

In the [[Bible]], this is the story of how [[God]] drowned every person on earth with a great flood, sparing only a man named Noah and his family of seven. [[Fundamentalists]] believe that the story is literally true, and there have been many claims to have found the ark on which Noah and his family sailed.

==The story==

The story of Noah's ark is told in [[Genesis]] 6:11-8:22. God sees that the world has become full of evil, and decides to kill everyone on Earth, with the exception of Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives.

God explains to Noah that he is going to flood the earth, and tells him to build a vessel, an ark. God gives instructions on how to build the ark, what its dimensions should be, and so forth. He also tells Noah to bring representative samples of all living creatures: either one pair of each animal (Genesis 6:19-20) or seven of each clean animal (or seven pairs) and two of each unclean animal (Genesis 7:2-3).

After the animals have been loaded onto the ark, god sends rain and opens up the "fountains of the great deep" for forty days and forty nights, until the earth is covered with water and every living being has died, except for those on the ark. The floodwaters start subsiding, and a year later the ark rests on "the mountains of Ararat".

Noah releases a raven through the window of the ark, but it can't find any dry land, and keeps flying around until the water subsides. Noah sends out a dove, but it returns, not having found any dry land. A week later, Noah releases the dove again, and this time it returns with an olive leaf in its beak, indicating that the water level is getting low. A week later, he releases the dove again, but it fails to return, and Noah looks out to see that the world has dried out.

==Counter-arguments==

# There are millions of known animal species in the world; it would take an impossibly large ship to hold representatives of all species, not to mention food for at least a year.
# Assuming that Noah did not take two of each species, but two of each "kind", that still requires an awfully rapid [[evolution]] explosion to account for the biological diversity today. If all creatures on earth were destroyed some five thousand years ago in the Great Flood, it would require incredibly fast evolution to cause, for instance, the dog "kind" to produce both dire wolves and chihuahuas.
# The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how did marsupials wind up in Australia, and only in Australia?
# The story of Noah is not the first Middle Eastern deluge story. The story told by Utnapishtim in "The Epic of Gilgamesh", in which the God Enlil and other deities drown the world to rid it of evil, is referred to as far back as 2000 B.C.E. Its most complete version comes from tablets dated between 669 and 633 B.C.E. The modern book of Genesis was not compiled for another 200 years.
# The Deluge would have meant the resetting of DNA lines for nearly every living thing on earth. All DNA lines should curiously and rapidly narrow to small breeding populations located in the Middle East. Ignoring every other creature on earth, we can say with some confidence, that human DNA lines appear to originate in Africa. Most lines do not appear to have stopped in the middle east 4000 to 5000 years ago.
# The Deluge, according to available timelines, occurred between 2348 B.C.E. and 2150 B.C.E. It should have represented a clear historical breaking point for every civilization around the world. No such break point exists. The river of history appears to have continued flowing uninterrupted through the Great Flood.

==External Links==
''Logical Inconsistencies:''
* [http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bad0d3c8a5fb8d8b?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Torpedo Ye Arke], by Pat James
* [http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html The Skeptic's Dictionary]

''Biblical Timelines:''
* [http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_ot1.htm About.com Religious Timelines]
* [http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/bket/BKET%20OT%20Time%20Line.htm The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Timeline]
* [http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm Word Sight'S Bible Time-line]

''Historical Timelines:''
* [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/03/wam/ht03wam.htm The Metropolitan Museum of Art historical timeline]
* [http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/3rdmill.htm Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago historical timeline]
* [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001198.html Infoplease.com Ancient history timeline]

''Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim''
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim Wikipedia Entry: Utnapishtim]
* [http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ The Epic of Gilgamesh

''DNA and Mapping Human Migration''
* [https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html National Geographic and the Genographic Project]

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]