24 Responses to “Ask the Oracle (Fantasy Questions Answered)”

1. wandering-dreamer says:

   November 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM

   Actually I have been told that it’s pretty easy to hack a DVD player to make it region free and most computer can switch between regions at least a couple of times.

   Reply
   • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

     November 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM

     Yes, but these days “region-free” isn’t enough (for the latest DVDs). You need “region-free,” but you also need a work-around.

     Reply
     • wandering-dreamer says:

       November 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM

       What’s a work around then? I last came across instructions for hacking a DVD player three years ago so the coding certainly could have changed in the time.

       Reply
       • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

         November 11, 2009 at 11:42 AM

         Not an authority on that! Google it.

         Reply
2. Michael says:

   November 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM

   I’m always kinda surprised that anyone thinks Satan is real.

   Reply
3. Anne says:

   November 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM

   I’m always kinda surprised that anyone thinks God is real :-/

   Reply
   • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

     November 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM

     Yeah, I wasn’t gonna go there.

     Reply
4. Mx says:

   November 11, 2009 at 7:53 AM

   Computers often have only a limited number of times they can switch regions, though this limitation can be overridden.

   But, in any case, WHY make a DVD that won’t work on a multi-region player? Someone who owns a multi-region player has paid over the odds, legally, for the privilege of being able to view out-of-region DVDs. Denying them that just seems needlessly perverse. In fact, it’s surely directly damaging to the companies pressing the DVDs, since it means that a segment of their potential market no longer has any reason to buy their product. Just how stupid are these companies? What can they possibly hope to gain?

   Reply
5. Ben says:

   November 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM

   Just as they say - “ask a dumb question, and you’ll get a dumber answer”.

   The existance of Satan is clearly a matter of faith. You can believe it, but you can’t prove it. Period.
   So the question “Does Satan exist” has a definite answer only inside a given wordld-view, including Christianity and Materialsm, which just define him as exixtent resp. non-exixtent.
   The least “authority” to ask would be a self-appointed internet “oracle”, whose official expertise is the modern fantasy genre.

   As for the answer:
   There’s no point in the bible where the geometric form of the “world” is even mentioned. And there’s no point in jewish (or christian) lore where the form of the wold is described as “flat”. As far back as sources go, jews/christians believed in the so-called “Aristotelic” cosmos, with a spherical earth in the middle of the universe, but never hold that of any religious significance (the famous Greek philosopher hadn’t invented it but he refined the theory and described it in detal for the first time). To be true, there where indeed some scholars in the early middle ages, who developed a flat earth theory and tried to proof it form the bible, but they wheren’t taken serious even in therit time.
   (For beginners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

   The bible also doesn’t claim that the sun revolves around the earth. There’s one occasion when the sun miraculousely stops, and people who wanted to confront the Copernican astronomy to the bible argued that to stop, it would have to been moving before. But that’s just nitpicking. Of course the point of this passage is the power of god who can even make stop the daily course of the sun, as we see it. We still speak quite reasonable about the “course of the sun” today, without adding an “apparent” every time. Moreover, an observer-based coordinate system is not really “less true” than one based on center of mass, it’s only more complicated.

   The flood was indeed one of the first biblical statements that was proven by modern archeology (of course not covering distant continents).

   Ancient Hebrews didn’t think “you can” live inside a whale for three day’s, it was considered a supernatual wonder.

   There may be other passages of the Bilbe or Hebrew lore that can be disproven (which still wouldn’t say anything about the existance of Satan). I’m not defending a verbatim understanding of the bible. But with it’s choice of examples the oracle just shows that it indeed knows very little about the matter.

   Not to mention the sorry pseudo-scientific explantation. Malevolent Aliens remembered as “devils”… Great.

   Stupid question.
   Stupid answer.

   PS: I see a discussion coming about the existance of god/gods in general. Believe me, this has been discussed by more intelligent and learned people for centuries without a definite result. If you are interested, try to get into the basics first. Do some reading on all sides (except perhaps for cretionits, they only support the materialist view with their narrow sight of religion). It takes some efford, because the field is really muddled nowadays, but is more rewarding than trying to get anything from an internet discussion with someone who knows less than yourself.

   Reply
   • Ben says:

     November 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM

     Er, no editing function? Crap…
     So, here are some typo corrections, sorry for the inconvience:

     - described it in detail for the first time
     - they weren’t taken serious even in their time
     - inside a whale for three days
     - except perhaps for creationists

     Reply
   • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

     November 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM

     Thanks for contributing to the discussion. I’m sorry you think it’s all “stupid,” and it’s true that I’m not a Bible scholar, but I think you’re reaching in your rebuttal, and much of what you say is just plain wrong. There are many points in the bible where the earth is said or implied to be flat — talking about the “end” of the earth, and its “corners.”

     Daniel 4:11
     11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth.

     In the Bible, the sun does revolve around the Earth, and the Earth also clearly doesn’t move:

     Psalm 104:5
     He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

     Ecclesiastes 1:5
     The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

     And the lack of any qualification in the passages you describe is exactly the point: “But the Flood didn’t cover the WHOLE world, nor did EVERYTHING die” is not in the Bible. If the writers of the passages cited did indeed have access to a more sophisticated understanding of the natural world, or a knowledge that the world is round, wouldn’t they have mentioned it, especially in an important cultural guide, on a subject where there is widespread misunderstanding? The Greeks weren’t shy about the fact the world was a sphere. The fact that they didn’t confirms that they did, in fact, have a limited, pre-scientific of the natural world.

     And Jonah surviving inside a whale for three days is indeed a miracle of the highest magnitude, since it allowed him to not need oxygen.

     None of this changes the point of the answer, of course, which is that this all indicates that their understanding of the spiritual world was equally as limited.

     Sure, you can argue from a “religious” point of view that Satan exist, that it’s a matter of “faith”. But my response would be that that’s the same as arguing from a “religious” point of view that the world is flat — and it would be equally wrong.

     Reply
     • Ben says:

       November 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM

       Wow, a quick answer indeed. I’m not a Bible scholar either, and I wouldn’t have been able to come up with a bunch of remote bible quotes to make my point thi fast. I just have some knowledge of intellectual history (comes with the job) and so I referred to the passage that was used in the classic arguments on the “flat earth” matter.
       To say more about all those bible verses, I’d have to do some research, which I will do.

       The greek weren’t “shy about the fact” that the world was a sphere, but they didn’t mention it in their religious writings. Why should they? Hesiod was not interested in the form of the earth when he did a compilation of the Greek myths. Aristoteles wrote a “natural history”, where he compiled the knowledge of his time about natural phenomena, including the form of the earth. The gods are scarcely mentioned in there. It’s just another genre.

       But my main point keeps valid:
       Proving or disproving some points of the bible (after having taken it literally) does not prove or disprove the existance of satan (or god).
       Even if the bible never had been written/compiled/canonized the existance of satan would remain a matter of believing.
       You actually CAN prove that the earth isn’t flat (as far as proofs can go), as you can measure it. That’s why it is a matter of fact/science, not a matter of faith, and you can’t take a “religious point of view” on it.
       You can’t measure satan’s existance. It’s just not possible. Therefore it is a matter of faith/assumpion, and you can ONLY take a religious, or rather: ideological, point of view on it. The scientific view on satans existance would just be “I cannont know this, as it is not an scientific signicant question”.
       So, I still think it is not very wise to discuss a question that obviousely can not be answered objectively in a fantasy internet forum.

       Reply
       • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

         November 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM

         Perhaps you’re right, and it is impossible to discuss matters of religion in any forum outside of a religious one, and I agree with you that it’s impossible to prove a negative. Still, the burden of proof is on those who assert he exists, as plenty of people do even in secular contexts. I daresay that’s sort of the “default” position in society today — that he really exists.

         Because of that, I think it’s perfectly fair to ask in a secular forum, “Does Satan exist?” And I think it’s perfectly fair to point out that, no, there is really no evidence whatsoever that he exists — that, in fact, there’s much evidence that he was created AS a myth, and our current understanding of him is mostly the result of (1) acknowledged fictional sources like Milton, and (2) a source (The Bible) that cannot be defended in any sense as being literally true.

         Mostly, I guess I disagree that the question shouldn’t be asked, answered, or discussed here.

         But hey, I appreciate your perspective! I always enjoy comments.

         Reply
         • Ben says:

           November 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM

           Hi again!

           OK, I was somewhat tired and in bad shape yesterday evening (being the first day without fever in a row of five. Also wanted to go to bed early in to be in shape to go to work again today. Having a second look on the those bible quotes, only part of them seem to require this much “research” at all (although I’m still impressed. I’ve attended a few Lutherian services in my live and I’ve read some handouts from Jehovah’s witnesses and the like, which were the only occsions where I have seen this abundance of bible-quoting). However, I actually did some research and first had a look on the Hebrew and Greek sources (no, I don’t read Hebrew, but I know enough aboput semitic languages to identify a word in ints different contexts and meanings when I have the texts, the translations and a dictionary, which is not to hard to find in case of the bible).

           OK, for these (related to the movement of planet earth):
           “Ecclesiastes 1:5
           The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
           Psalm 104:5
           He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
           ”

           This is just nitpicking again. These passages don’t deal with cosmical mechanics, and it’s not their purpose to “explain” astronomics.
           Ecclesiastes uses the course of the sun as a metaphor of the mercyless flow of time, just as one would word it today. Adding a “apparently” would have been nonsense in the context. Of course I’m not saying the author was aware of the real sky mechanics and just dropped the “apparent” for stylistic reasons. His understanding of these things was most probably the aristotelic one. But here, he just used a figure of speech, neither he nor “the bible” nor “the Hebrews” took position in the question of the earth’s movement.

           In Psalm 104 you (and most modern bibles) translate the Hebrew word “‘Eeretz” as “earth”.
           “‘Eeretz” basically means “land”. It can be used in mostly the same contexts as the english “land”, in the meanings of “nation”, “territory”, “land (as opposed to water)” etc. (but not as “rural”). In some instances it can be used in a wider meaning as “the earth” (as opposed to the sky, so pretty much meaning planet earth, if I got it right), although there are other, more explicit words for “world”.
           In psalm 104, the word is clearly used in opposition to water:
           “5 Who didst establish ‘Eeretz upon its foundations, that it should not be moved for ever and ever;
           6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains.
           7 At Thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of Thy thunder they hasted away–
           8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down–unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them;
           9 Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass over, that they might not return to cover ‘Eeretz….”
           (This is NOT a record of the deluge, but of the partition of land and see during creation, so please don’t pick on “the waters stood above the mountains” here).
           Clearly, ‘Eeretz here is the land masses, and the whole scenario is an “inside” view of the earth’s biosphere, not a view on the earth from outer space. In this setting, the land masses are indeed the most fixed and “well-founded” objects, grounded on relatively stable bases. Of course they CAN move, and the hebrews knew that. They had no plan of continental shift mechanics, but surely knew about earthquakes. All the more reason to thank god as long as the land is “established upon its foundations”.

           For the other verse (related to the “flat earth”):
           Daniel 4:11 “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth.”
           In the bible (or other ancient Hebrew sources) the form of the world is not expressively described, you won’t find a pasage reading “The form of the world is like an apple and the promised land is found at it’s stalk”. I would not call it certain, but still a fairly sure guess, to assume Hebrews in late antique (when most of the bible was compiled) shared the common “aristotelic” view. This said, let’s take a closer look on this. Greeks also sometimes spoke of “the end of the world”, for example the “pillars of Hercules” (the Gibraltar rocks where the Mediterranean opens into the Ocean) where such a point, or at the eastern border of India, where Alexander the great was said to have found the land of the dead. Of course these authors knew the shape of the world is spherical. With “end of the world” they just ment “end of the inhabited world” or “of all lands”. Europe, Asia and Africa where the only known continents, and the antique world view consisted not only of earths outer form and place in cosmos, but put some geography on earth’s surface, too. There were maps in antique (no antique worldmap survived, but there are ancient descripions). The inhabited “world” (the three continents) seem to have been seen as roughly circular and still overall “flat”, only very slightly curved because of earth’s curving.
           In Daniel 4 the Babylonian king Nebucadnezar describes a dream to Daniel. The giant tree in his dream is so tall that it can be seen by just everybody. “Ends of the earth (again: ‘Eeretz)” clearly refer to the inhabited lands in this context, even if we would not assume a “aristotelic” model.
           As for the “corners” of the earth, I found only two examples (and this time I did a online fulltext search, I getting careful ):
           Job 38:13, which is VERY obscure - how would MORNING shake the earth, be it a planet or a continent, of flat, spherical or torioid form?
           The other one in revelation 7:1, which is from the New testament, not even in Hebrew, and from a time and culture for which the acceptance of the aristotelic model is not a fair guess but a proven fact. Moreover, the directly following mentioning of the “four winds” makes it clear that the four cardinal points are ment (the Greek word in question is “gonias”, meaning “corne” or “angle” - as in “penta-gon”).

           As for the flood again:
           Floods that covered all land have happened in the early history of earth (as much as I know), so they are not “impossible” per se. The earth’s surface had not always the same form as today. But of course the deluge has to be some much later, more regional event, although it was obviousely remembered (not only by the Hebrews) for covering most of the known world and wiping out all known human tribes expect for some individuals who survived with the help of god / the gods.
           The bible says that the deluge “covered all high mountains under the whole sky”, which is pretty definite and surely not correct. But it’s more an exaggregation than a false information. Or rather a true story told from a very “Hebaocentric” point of view. Point is, the deluge is not a very good example for “false information” in the bible. There are much beter ones.
           And this brings us back to MY point:

           There are questions that can be answered objectively, when some basic axioms are agreed upon (our senses show us a real “world”, natural laws are in effect, mathematics, causes have effects, written and material leftovers come from the real past, this level of things). Even the best answer can have some degree of uncertainness left, but you can tell which answer IS the best by objectie criteria. If the oracle is asked: “does the moon exist?”, there’s claearly a best answer (I won’t tell), based on empirics, and therefore objectively correct (even if, according to Popper, there is no stringent empiric proof - of course, there’s a remote chance the moon’s existance will be disproven one day). If the oracle is asked: “what’s 1+1″, there is a best answer (OK, surprise, it’s 2), based on mathmatics, and therefore objectively correct (even if, according to Goedel, there is no stringent mathematic proof - there’s a remote chance to disprove 1+1=2. There really is. That’s the stuff academic mathematins spend their time with ).
           Other questions are a matter of opinion, taste or POV. When the oracle is asced “Is Disney’s A Christmas Carol a good film?” there is no objective answer. But as it is a subjective question, the correct answer is a subjective answer. The answer “Yes” is perfectly correct and fitting if that is the oracle’s opinion (OK, kill me later for that one). Of course it’s more polite to give some background to one’s opinion. You can back up your opinion good or poorly, and in some sense this qualifies your answer. But every answer is “correct” as long as you mean it.
           And than there are questions which are no matter of opinion but also can’t be answered objectively. “Does Satan exist?” is not a matter of opinion. You can have the opinion that he exists, but if he doesn’t, you and everybody of this opinion are just plain wrong, even if you won’t know it, as it can’t be prooved. When I say “Plan Nine from Outer Space, is the best movie ever made” and you say “Deafula is the best movie ever made”, we still can be both correct, as we express our personal tastes. If I say “Satan does exist” and you say “Satan does not exist”, one of us is correct, the other is wrong, even if we won’t know who is what in this lifetime. These questions also cannot be answered objectively. There is no measurable data to base such an answer upon.
           You can answer, even proove, these questions when you put in more axiomes to agree upon, but that’s no longer objective. If you are arguing inside the boundaries of a given religion, you will normally have enough such data to build a . Same is true if you are arguing inside the boundaries of materialism (in the philosophical sense), then you have the a priori fact that, per definitionem, nothing metaphisical exists, and can easily pont out that so can’t Satan.
           These questions include (but are not restricted to) religious (or, in a broader sense, metaphisical and/or spritual ones).
           There is no “best” answer in an objective way to them. They are a matter of faith or assumption.
           Having faith is basically a good thing and if one believes in Satan as a logical part of christianity, that’s OK, but it would be rediculous if he would put that as an objective fact in a secular themed internet forum. If he’s not some strange fanatic, he would state it as belief, and rightly so. Besides, if his belief includes some ancient writings, it’s meaningless if I can or can’t show that these writigs aren’t accurate in describing phenomena they are not concerned with,but use them as part of their contemporary language and context.
           Same of course goes for the opposite. A rigid materialist can be convinced that there just cannot be anything not material, but it would be foolish if he would just state: “Satan doesn’t exist cause I can’t see him”. If he’s not some strange fanatic, he would state it as his philosophical school and try to give some backgrounds. And I couldn’t “disproove” him by showing that some key materialst thinker erred in, say, political matters.

           So, yeah, I stay to my opinion that metaphyical themes are better avoided in secular themed websites. They may be openly discussed in a forum (though I’ve seen many of these discussions and none of it ever left ground level), but this is not a forum. It’s an oracle. One question. One answer. So the question should be answerable and the answer schould be objective.

           Best wishes

           Ben

           PS:
           You see, I like to discuss with you, so I hope you don’t take it personal that I question the oracle in it’s den.
           PPS: This comment took me some time. I really have things to attend to, so I just can’t keep it on in this style. A yes, and I really really couldn’t muster the extra time to correct all typos. Don’t have an english autocorrect prog.
         • Ben says:

           November 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM

           PPPPPPPPS:

           I think the burden of proof is with the one who states a fact, and in here it was you who did so to begin with. >)
         • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

           November 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM

           LOL. I think we’re seriously lost in the weeds here.

           As I said, it’s impossible to prove a negative, but it’s still possible to say to someone that is making an assertion that has no evidence behind it: “No, what you’re saying is incorrect.” When I say, “No, Satan doesn’t exist,” I’m saying, “There is no evidence that he exists, and on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that he’s entirely fictional.”

           As for the rest of it, we’ll have to agree to disagree whether or not the existence of Satan can be discussed outside of a religious forum!
         • Ben says:

           November 14, 2009 at 3:25 AM

           (many Ps)S:
           OK, I accept a new week is approaching and the oracle has to attend to new questions, so perhaps we can leave it at this point and just agree to disagree on the unsolved issues (Though it would certainly be more interesting to keep it up, which would be certainly possible even on an archived page).

           So I will put a new question to the oracle’s trusted priests.
           See you.
   • Alan says:

     November 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM

     The author specificially says that the idea that “devils” are aliens is “extremely unlikely.” But I actually think this is an interesting possibility — one that Carl Sagan considered (and argued against, instead arguging that devils were mere superstitition). Ben, it would be pseudo-science to assert it as true, but to consider it as a possibility, a hypothesis? That’s literally what science is all about.

     Reply
     • Ben says:

       November 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM

       Yeah, I know he called it “unlikely”. But he first tried to give an “objective” answer to a metaphysical question, and then came up with THIS… That’s all I tried to say.
       It’s interesting that Carl Sagan considered (and downed) this possibillity, but expecially in his case, it would be extremely important to know the exact context, as his works cover such a range of genres. Carl Sagan was a real great SF writer (his scientific background making his books all the better, but he still uses his healthy dose of fiction), a talented and succesfull popularizer of science, an (averange) researcher in astronomy and astrobiology himself and a learned amateur philosopher.

       Reply
6. MAGPIE says:

   November 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM

   I actually think it’s much more chilling if Satan doesn’t exist. Human beings did all this on our own? Yikes.

   Satan is a cop-out.

   Reply
7. aion kinah us says:

   November 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM

   I actually think it’s much more chilling if Satan doesn’t exist. Human beings did all this on our own? Yikes.

   Satan is a cop-out.

   Reply
8. Helion says:

   November 12, 2009 at 12:48 AM

   Uh, actually they proved the world was covered in a flood. Several times. One of them thought to be ‘Noah’s flood’

   Reply
   • Brent Hartinger, Editor says:

     November 12, 2009 at 1:03 AM

     Um, no. There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land masses.

     From Wikipedia (but any legitimate encyclopedia or textbook will agree):

     While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[24] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[25][26] this view is no longer widely held.[27]

     Reply
9. bathrooms says:

   January 5, 2010 at 12:05 AM

   Thanks for posting this, lifted my day.

   Reply

Leave a Reply