The Great Flood of Noah: Biblical Great Flood Account, Part 2

2.1 Reason for the Flood and Antediluvian World

According to the Bible, the world was created by God in six, literal 24-hour days. After the Creation (and the seventh day rest), man was given three positive commands and one negative command. The three positive commands were: (1) be fruitful, multiply, and fill the Earth (Gen. 1:28); (2) subdue the Earth and have dominion over it (Gen. 1:28); and (3) tend the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15). The one negative command was to avoid eating the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17). As every student of Bible history knows, Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God and ate the forbidden fruit. For this sin, they were evicted from the garden paradise and a curse was placed upon them (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 8:20-22). Outside the garden, Adam and Eve began their family.

According to Gen. 4:1 ff., it was only after their eviction from the garden that any conceptions and/or births are mentioned. Apparently, since one of the original commands God gave them was to reproduce, they did not remain in the garden very long before they sinned. Their first two sons were named Cain and Abel. Cain murdered Abel, and eventually went into exile, separating himself from the rest of the family (Gen. 4:16ff.). Like two distinct streams, the two groups flowed along side-by-side for more than a thousand years. Eventually, however, the righteous married indiscriminately, being motivated by lust. The Bible observes that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose” (Gen. 6:2). These marriages gave rise to people who found themselves in total rebellion against God, as described in Gen. 6:5-7.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repented me that I have made them” (Gen. 6:5-7).

At this point, it might be prudent to point out that the period from Creation to the Flood was not just “a few short years.” The truth is, the time span involved was approximately 1,656 years. During that period, people, especially those who lived to advanced ages as did the patriarchs, would have proliferated and spread too many areas around the globe. Man not only was endowed with far greater vitality of body and mind than he now possesses (a point that may be inferred legitimately from the great ages to which he lived), but inhabited a pristine world of practically unlimited, unspoiled natural resources.[1]

Living longer under such conditions also would mean that man was much more prolific than he now is. Yet even in our age, when life spans are shortened considerably, 1,656 years would be enough time to produce an enormous population. During the century between 1830 and 1930, for example, the world population was doubled in number (i.e., it increased by about 850 million people within a hundred years). Imagine, given the antediluvian setting of a worldwide mild climate, great vitality, longer life spans, and impressive natural resources, the increase that would occur, not in 100 years, but in 1,656 years.[2]

2.2 The Sources of Water for the Globe Covering Flood in Scientific Context

The Bible gives us information about where the waters came from and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis 7:11 as “the fountains of the great deep” and the “windows of heaven.”

2.2.1 The Fountains of the Great Deep

 “The fountains of the great deep” are mentioned before “the windows of heaven,” indicating either relative importance or the order of events. What are “the fountains of the great deep”? This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11. “Fountains of the deep” is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. “The great deep” is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/ judgment. “The deep” is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13, Eze. 26:19, Jonah. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means ‘fountain, spring, well.’ So, “the fountains of the great deep” are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both. If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters, then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.[3]

Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had have been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences. There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record; layers that were obviously deposited during Noah’s Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, Austin and others (J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K.. P. Wise) have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding, perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of “the fountains of the great deep.”[4]

2.2.2 The Windows of Heaven

The other source of the waters for Noah’s Flood was “the windows of heaven.” Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously. Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on Earth until the time of the Flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this.3 Some have argued that God’s use of the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:12–17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the Flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the Flood, this would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special ‘new’ sign of a covenant (e.g. bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper).

It is difficult to envisage a pre-Flood water cycle without clouds and rain, as the sun’s heat, even in that era, must have evaporated large volumes of surface waters which would have to have eventually condensed back into liquid water. And droplets of liquid water form clouds from which we get rain. The Bible uses ‘windows of heaven’ twice in reference to the Flood (Gen. 7:11, 8:2). The term is used four times elsewhere in the Old Testament: in 2 Kings 7:2, 19, Isaiah 24:18 and Malachi 3:10. In all cases, it refers to God intervening in an extraordinary way to pour out blessings or judgment on his people. ‘Windows of heaven’ is not a term applied to ordinary events. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the Flood. The rain was extraordinary; like nothing anyone had seen before.

2.2.2.1 The Water Above

We are told in Genesis 1:6–8 that on the second day of creation God divided the waters that were on the earth from the waters that He placed above the earth when He made a ‘firmament’ (Hebrew, raqiya,[5] meaning ‘expanse’) between those waters.[6] Many have concluded that this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse, suggesting that the expanse included the atmosphere where the birds fly. This would put these waters above the atmosphere. However, Gen. 1:20, speaking of the creation of the birds, says (literally), “let birds fly above the ground across the face of the expanse of the heavens.” [7] This at least allows that ‘the expanse’ may include the space beyond the atmosphere. Dr Russell Humphreys has argued that since Genesis 1:17 tells us that God put the sun, moon and stars also “in the expanse of the heaven” then the expanse must at least include interstellar space, and thus the waters above the expanse of Genesis 1:7 would be beyond the stars at the edge of the universe.[8] However, prepositions (in, under, above, etc.) are somewhat flexible in Hebrew, as well as English. A submarine can be spoken of as both under the sea and in the sea. Likewise, the waters could be above the expanse and in the expanse, so we should perhaps be careful not to draw too much from these expressions.

2.2.2.2 A Water Vapor Canopy

Dr Joseph Dillow[9] did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the Flood. In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the “waters above” could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around Earth similar to those around Venus. The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapor canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapor canopy, causing the water vapor to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.

Some have suggested that the vapor canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.[10] A vapor canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today. In today’s world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the Flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.

2.2.2.3 A Major Problem with the Canopy Theory

Vardiman recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth. Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,[11] but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 12 m (40 ft) to only 0.5 m (20 in.). Further Modelling suggested that a maximum of 2 m of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored. Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood. Most creationist scientists have now either abandoned the water vapor canopy model or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly as other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.[12] For example, in the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain. Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.

2.2.2.4 Where did the waters go?

The whole earth was covered with the Flood waters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God’s command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5–6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the Flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 might suggest an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they would never again cover the earth (verse 9).[13] They are the same waters! Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isa. 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover Earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilo meters (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of Earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins.

---

[1] Thomson Bible pp. 1992, 1995, 265-275

[2] Bert Thomson, The Global Flood of Noah (Montgomery, Alabama: Apologetics Press, 2005), 14-16.

[3] Evidence is mounting that there is still a huge amount of water stored deep in the earth in the crystal lattices of minerals, which is possible because of the immense pressure.

[4] S.A. Austin, Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of Earth history ([n. p.]: Proc. Third ICC,1994 ), 609–621.

[5] In trying to disparage the Bible, some skeptics claim that raqiya describes a solid dome and that the ancient Hebrews believed in a flat Earth with a slotted dome over it. Such ideas are not in the Bible or in the Hebrew understanding of raqiya.

[6] J.P. Holding, Is the Raqiya (Firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the Cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: A Response to Paul H. Seely, Creation 13 ([n. p.]: [n. p.], 1999), 44–51.

[7] C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI, US:  Baker Book House, 1942), 78.

[8] D.R. Humphreys, A Biblical Basis for Creationist Cosmology (Pittsburgh, PA: Proc. Third ICC, 1994), 255–266.

[9] J.C. Dillow, The Waters Above (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981).

[10] Movement of tectonic plates could also explain the polar occurrence of such warm-climate plant remains.

[11] D.E. Rush and L, Vardiman, Pre-Flood vapor canopy radiative temperature profiles (Pittsburgh, PA: Proc. Second ICC, 1990), 231–245.

[12] Of course we may never arrive at a correct understanding of exactly how the Flood occurred, but that does not change the fact that it did occur.

[13] The most natural translation of Psalm 104:8a is “The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down” (ESV+, NIV, NASV, GEN-a, HNV). However, some commentators think that this refers to Creation Week events.

The Great Flood of Noah: Extra Biblical Flood Accounts, Part 1

Introduction

The story of the great flood is worldwide known story or event which is mentioned in the various sacred literatures of the world religions, as well as in the Bible. According to  the Christians’  perspective, the great Flood event is a true event occurred in the ancient days of Noah, approximately 4000 BCE as a great intervention of God in the form of judgement on the whole humanity for their rebellious nature and sins against Him Gen 6:1- 7. The various researchers have described over 100 flood epics some like around from the world. For instance, Europe, Asia, Australia, East Indies, Americas, East Africa, and many other places. These events could be accepted as a traditional epic only as individual as described in the particular religious literature, but as far as rational being this phenomenon puzzles the people. Because, how it can be possible that such event named the great flood occurred once upon a time in the history, but it mentioned in almost all religious sacred literatures. Therefore, the critics of the flood narrative consider it either a myth, or a local flood story. The questions which I assume that the Flood narration is belong to whom? Suppose, it is belongs to a particular tribe, sect, or religion, then how it could spread in the other religions? Or in other way, if it is belongs to the Bible then why it is mentioned in the other religions?  Answer would be simple; the emersion of the multi sects and religions would had began as they migrated from the Babel tower, where they were one people, had one language and history, and perhaps worshiped only one true God. Thus they took their history along with them as well as the great flood story. Therefore, the idea of the great Flood absolutely derived from original event. Likewise the people of the every continent could have developed their historical background and religious literature. Therefore, clearly we read the story of great Flood in every sacred writhing. Let’s consider this phenomenon as a hypothesis that the great Flood which we read in almost all ancient sacred literature was global rather than local or myth. As the phenomena of the great Flood covered the whole globe, in the same way the real Flood of Noah had covered whole globe with water and so this event had been spread out as oral tradition in every tribe, nation, and language from generation to generation. If it is false phenomena, then logically it is impossible to get inspiration of almost all same events to note down in the every region of the religion, whereas the religions which we know today around the world are totally different then each other in description, in people who follow it, in languages, and in region, or if it could be possible in some way somewhere, seems no reason that everybody write it down in the sacred literatures. In other hand people were imposed to do that, why? Because they knew with the help of oral tradition that it was true event. The Flood narration was very common event in the ancient days; therefore, it is everywhere as we see today. The differentiation in the narration came much later after the Flood when people began to live in various part of the world. In this course paper we will see the great Flood event in detail in the light of doctrine of creation along with scientific discoveries which thoroughly assist with geographical and other scientific evidence that there was a great Flood once upon a time and earth was completely covered with water. 

1.1 Floods in Context

Some scholars believe that memories of real disasters, such as the violent and unpredictable floods that occurred along Mesopotamia’s Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, underlie mythological accounts of catastrophic rains and floods. These stories give meaning and purpose to events in the natural world. In myths, floods become part of a cycle of destruction and rebirth. Mythological floods are not local. They take place on a grand scale, generally covering the whole world. Though the direct cause of the rising waters  may  be  heavy  rainfall,  gods  or  other  supernatural  beings  are responsible. Often the flood is sent as punishment for the wrongdoings of humankind. In some traditions, a flood reproduces the original mythological conditions of creation, the formless, empty expanse out of which the world was created. The flood not only destroys the old world but also sets the stage for a brand new one.

1.2 Floods in Art, Literature, and Everyday Life

Of all the floods in mythology, the flood described in the Bible has inspired more artists than any other. Images of Noah and the Biblical deluge can be found throughout European and American art, with famous examples by Michelangelo, Gustave Doré, Jacopo Bassano, and Edward Hicks. Mythological floods have even appeared on film; the Disney animated film Fantasia 2000 contains a sequence re-telling the myth  of  Noah  with  Donald  Duck  filling  the  role,  while  the  2007 comedy Evan Almighty casts Steve Carell as a modern-day version of Noah.[1]

1.3 Flood Parallel

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood. These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time. Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition.

1.4 Egyptian Flood Account

People have become rebellious. Atum said he will destroy all he made and return the earth to the Primordial Water which was its original state. Atum will remain, in the form of a serpent, with Osiris. [Faulkner, plate 30]

1.5 Babylonian Flood Account

Three times (every 1200 years), the gods were distressed by the disturbance from human overpopulation. The gods dealt with the problem first by plague, then by famine. Both times, the god Enki advised men to bribe the god causing the problem. The third time, Enlil advised the gods to destroy all humans with a flood, but Enki had Atrahasis build an ark and so escape. Also on the boat were cattle, wild animals and birds, and Atrahasis' family. When the storm came, Atrahasis sealed the door with bitumen and cut the boat's rope. The storm god Adad raged, turning the day black. After the seven day flood, the gods regretted their action. Atrahasis made an offering to them, at which the gods gathered like flies, and Enki established barren women and stillbirth to avoid the problem in the future. [Dalley, pp. 23­35]

1.6 Assyrian Flood Account  

The gods, led by Enlil, agreed to cleanse the earth of an overpopulated humanity, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god Ea in a dream. He and some craftsmen built a large boat (one acre in area, seven decks) in a week. He then loaded it with his family, the craftsmen, and "the seed of all living creatures." The waters of the abyss rose up, and it stormed for six days. Even the gods were frightened by the flood's fury. Upon seeing all the people killed, the gods repented and wept. The waters covered everything but the top of the mountain Nisur, where the boat landed. Seven days later, Utnapishtim released a dove, but it returned finding nowhere else to land. He next returned a sparrow, which also returned, and then a raven, which did not return. Thus he knew the waters had receded enough for the people to emerge. Utnapishtim made a sacrifice to the gods. He and his wife were given immortality and lived at the end of the earth. [Sandars, chpt. 5]

1.7 Persian Flood Account

In early times, the earth was full of malign creatures fashioned by the evil Ahriman. The angel Tistar (the star Sirius) descended three times, in the form of man, horse, and bull respectively, causing ten days and nights of rain each time. Each rain drop became as big as a bowl, and the water rose the height of a man over the whole earth. The first flood drowned the creatures, but the dead noxious creatures went into holes in the earth. Before returning to cause the second flood, Tistar, in the form of a white horse, battled the demon Apaosha, who took the form of a black horse. Ormuzd blasted the demon with lightning, making the demon give a cry which can still be heard in thunderstorms, and Tistar prevailed and caused rivers to flow. The poison washed from the land by the second flood made the seas salty. The waters were driven to the ends of the earth by a great wind and became the sea Vourukasha ("Wide ­Gulfed"). [Carnoy, p. 270; Vitaliano, pp. 161­162; H.Miller, p. 288]

1.8 Asian Flood Account

Vogul: After seven years of drought, the Great Woman said to the Great Man that rains had come elsewhere; how should they save themselves. The Great Man counseled the other giants to make boats from cut poplars, anchor them with ropes of willow roots 500 fathoms long, and provide them with seven days of food and with pots of melted butter to grease the ropes. Those who did not make all the preparations perished when the waters came. After seven days, the waters sank. But all plants and animals had perished, even the fish. The survivors, on the brink of starvation, prayed to the great god Numi­târom, who recreated living things. [Gaster, pp. 93­94]

1.9 Chinese Flood Account

The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything, however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.

1.10 Indian Flood Account

A long time ago lived a man named Manu. Manu, while washing himself, saved a small fish from the jaws of a large fish. The fish told Manu, "If you care for me until I am full grown I will save you from terrible things to come". Manu asked what kind of terrible things. The fish told Manu that a great flood would soon come and destroy everything on the earth. The fish told Manu to put him in a clay jar for protection. The fish grew and each time he outgrew the clay jar Manu gave him a larger one. Finally the fish became a ghasha, one of the largest fish in the world. The fish instructed Manu to build a large ship since the flood was going to happen very soon. As the rains started Manu tied a rope from the ship to the ghasha. The fish guided the ship as the waters rose. The whole earth was covered by water. When the waters began sub siding the ghasha led Manu's ship to a mountaintop.

1.11 Greece Flood Account

A long time ago, perhaps before the golden age was over, humans became proud. This bothered Zeus as they kept getting worse. Finally Zeus decided that he would destroy all humans. Before he did this Prometheus, the creator of humans, warned his human son Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha. Prometheus then placed this couple in a large wooden chest. The rains started and lasted nine days and nights until the whole world was flooded. The only thing that was not flooded was the peaks of Mount Parnassus and Mount Olympus. Mount Olympus is the home of the gods. The wooden chest came to rest on Mount Parnassus. Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha got out and saw that everything was flooded. They lived on provisions from the chest until the waters subsided. At Zeus' instruction they re­populated the earth.

---

[1] [n. a.], "Floods,” UXL Encyclopedia of World Mythology, Vols. 1-5, London: Gale Cengage Learning, 2009. 387-393.

The Meaning of Life in Biblical Aspect: Perception and Perplexity of the Meaning of Life, Part 1

From the inception of philosophizing process of man, the question of life’s meaning has been a significant quest. For millennia, thinkers have addressed the question of what, if anything, makes a life meaningful in some form or other. The basic idea of the question of life’s meaning is depicted, to rethink the age-old question again, in this chapter by tracing the right sense of the quest under the first sub-title to avoid ambiguity and by presenting the significance of the question and basic categories of the answer.

1.1 Descriptive Definition

Before initiating the meditations on the meaning of life, the meaning of the ‘meaning of life’ should be established. The question of life’s meaning in this thesis is not the semantic meaning of the word ‘life’ or any sort of definition of ‘life’ or  a description of this term’s usage. Though ‘meaning’ is the term which appears to most naturally find its home within a linguistic context, there are additional non-linguistic contexts in which the locution, “What is the meaning of x?” makes perfect sense.[1] Such a nonlinguistic sense of the meaning of life is the discussion taken into consideration here which is radically not in the easy-to-define sense. For the further clarification of the focus, the meaning of the term ‘meaning’ has to be established which seems so intricate. ‘Meaning’ has multiple meanings and at least some of the more prominent ones mitigate its usefulness in the context of trying to formulate the intuitions driving the question of the meaning of life. This term has different meanings as it relates to the various disciplines of study such as medicine, science, mathematics, culture, etc. The word ‘meaning,’ as in general sense, as a noun means what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import; the end, purpose, or significance of something. As a verb it means to have in mind as one's purpose or intention; to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc.[2]  As far as this thesis is concerned the non-linguistic philosophical sense is taken for the quest of the meaning of life. The quest for the meaning of life can also be expressed in different forms, such as "Why are we here?", "What is life all about?", and "What is the purpose of existence?" or even "Does life exist at all?" Before inquiring the meaning of life, it should be established with certainty that there is a meaning for life; or else there rise another question of whether there is any meaning for life or not. Since the meaning of our particular acts can be explained by reference to goals and conventions, there should be a meaning of our lives as whole too. If each and every act entails a meaning, then there should be a greater meaning for the life as whole, and what would be the greater meaning for human life?

1.2 Big Question

What is the meaning of life? Probably it’s the ultimate human question for which multitudinous answers have been presented; in spite the search for the meaning is not silenced. This question of the meaning and value of life has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms. Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Theologians and psychologists were also concerned about this much perplexed question. Even the laymen think of this question when they undergo some difficulties or whenever they were confused of the life experiences that they go through. The question whether life has any meaning is difficult to interpret, and the more one concentrates his critical faculty on it the more it seems to elude him. Though it seems to be somewhat vague, it is sufficiently intelligible for us to seek to answer intuit is less likely to be conceived in wonder than in a mood of disquietude. It is not asked seriously in a spirit of disinterested intellectual curiosity or grateful life-affirmation. Rather it emerges when one’s sense of the meaningfulness of life has been deeply shaken – when one fears that life, or at least one’s own life, is without meaning. The typical intonation of the question may be more revealing than the words. “What can it all mean?” may have more in common with a sigh than with a grammatical question. It’s an announcement that the foundation of one’s sense of meaning has been undermined.[3] The quest for the meaning of life is one of the most important questions, if not the most important question, of human existence. This, of course, creates a prima facie impasse, and thus, makes the quest more complicated in spite of all its apparent significance. Philosophically, the question therefore has seemed insurmountable to many. It is surely not the question about the semantic meaning of the word “life,” but what then is it a question about? Is it a question about all of existence? Is it asking for comprehensive explanation of why the universe exists and of our place within it? And if so, is it asked with strong teleological assumptions at the fore, such that a purely efficient, mechanistic causal story would leave the inquirer unsatisfied? These many confusions are indications of a deeper perplexity.[4] Indeed, there is a profound human impulse to seek a sweeping, deep explanation, context, or narrative through which to interpret existence, and then move beyond localized foci by living into this universal, totalizing narrative. Some spurn this question by supposing that there is no meaning in life at all because of Quest’s outer shell as absurd. But the indestructible fact is that man cannot live without meaning. At least man tries to create his own meaning for his life. Man does each and every deed with an attempt of making that particular deed to make it meaningful, though it may not be meaningful according to social norm. Meaning gives the motivation for any activity. Meaning in life is a vital element that gives coherence to the person’s worldview and a critical factor for his/her psychological and spiritual well-being. If someone does not strive to find meaning in his life, then sooner or later he will lose his psychological well-being. Meaninglessness causes a situation called “existential vacuum.”[5]  Meaningfulness in life helps a person to have a foundation set of principles that motivates and guide his choices and behaviours. Ultimately, the searching the answer for this riddle will take the truth seeker from fact (knowledge) through meaning (philosophy), to religion (value).[6] The end result is that if people are conscious of the noble reasons for their lives, then they will gladly make the choices that lead them there. That, of course, will produce a better, more benign world on which all of mankind can live and thrive. Victor Frankl said that man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.” In spite of the vitality of the meaning and impossibility of meaninglessness, and the responsibility of being meaningful, the Riddle has become more complex.

1.3 Meaning of Life: Subjective or Objective

In addition to the perplexity of the Big Question, two conflicting viewpoints on meaning of life arise: subjective meaning of life and objective meaning of life. The former perspective holds that there is a specific meaning for our lives and they are common to all in its essence even though not in execution while the latter holds that there is no specific meaning for our lives as a common meaning even in essence since each person determines the meaning of his/her of life.There is logical space for an inter-subjective theory according to which there are invariant standards of meaning for human beings that are constituted by what they would all agree upon from a certain communal standpoint. However, this orthogonal approach is not much of a player in the field and so it is set aside in this discussion. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual's pro-attitudes such as desires, ends, and choices. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she believes it to be or seeks it out. According to this view, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one's variable mental states. Common instances are views that one's life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, the more one achieves one's highly ranked goals, or the more one does what one believes to be really important. It is maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something. As far as evolution is concerned in the generation of an individual human life, only two factors intervene: chance and the survival of the fittest. This implies that an individual life cannot be said to have any predetermined purpose and meaning, and if at all meaning is added to human life, that should be subjective.[7] Subjectivism was dominant for much of the 20th century when pragmatism, positivism, existentialism, noncognitivism, and Humeanism were quite influential. However, in the last quarter of the 20th century, “reflective equilibrium” became a widely accepted argumentative procedure, whereby more controversial normative claims are justified by virtue of entailing and explaining less controversial normative claims that do not command universal acceptance. Such a method has been used to defend the existence of objective value, and, as a result, subjectivism about meaning has lost its dominance.[8] Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is (at least partly) mind-independent, i.e., is a real property that exists regardless of being the object of anyone's mental states. Here, something is meaningful (to some degree) in virtue of its intrinsic nature, independent of whether it is believed to be meaningful or sought. They believe that meaning is constituted (at least in part) by something independent of the mind about which we can have correct or incorrect beliefs.[9] Obtaining some variable pro-attitude is not sufficient for meaning, on this view. Because one could take anything as a meaning for his/her life, and possibly it can be even not worth of having as meaningful. Hence, there should be a specific meaning for life which should be evidently common at least in essence which is independent of human mind, and if such a meaning is derived from Supreme Being it can establish justice and lead to hope of better humanity. Even the consensus of community as the meaning of life can lead to wrong destiny. Consensus of any sort in any given community is objective meaning, since it is not independent of human mind. Mostly, theists believe in objective meaning of life since they ascribe God as the author of the existence of life on the face of the earth. Meaning of any sort suggests an author or creator. Creator only knows the purpose of creation. Even though creation can be used for different purpose or held from fulfilling the original purpose, original objective meaning exists independent of creation. Therefore, for theists, God is the only source of knowing the meaning of human existence on earth since God Himself is the author of meaning of life. Above two are the conflicting major viewpoints on the meaning of life if at all meaning of life is considered. Even if one comes to the point of considering a meaning for life, the above views lead to another absurdity. In simple categorization, atheists believe in subjective meaning or no meaning while theists believe in objective for life.

1.4 Naturalistic Meaning

Most of the writings on meaning of life these days are by naturalists in the sense that they believe that a significant existence is possible in a purely physical universe or a world as known by science. Naturalists view that meaning does not depend on objective value of any sort, instead favouring the notion that meaning comes from intrinsically worthwhile activities that one loves, is emotionally tied to or finds meaningful.[10] Discussing the meaning of life, in naturalism, is a defining characteristic of being human and meaning should be pragmatic in nature. Naturalism also actually leaves us with that pesky problem of meaning. Since chance and survival of the fittest are the reason for the existence of the human race on earth in naturalistic ideology, any specific meaning for life is not possible. If that is the case, what would be the need for any subjective meaning even? Some naturalists even argue that our need for cognitive meaning is an unintentional side effect (an evolutionary spandrel) of our cognitive, problem-solving, time-projecting brains as the beginning to scientifically understand why our brains need meaning and how our brains produce meaning.[11] As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism. Naturalistic meaning of life is determined by the following naturalistic principles:

(1) There is no God and no deity; there are only us, the material world, and the ecosystem surrounding us. There is no soul and super nature, everything, including ourselves, are  made  of materials.

(2) Things happen, not because of God’s wish and design, but because of the underline natural principles and the randomness embedded in those principles.

(3) There is an end to everything, from the Cosmo to our individual life.  The values of things are not in their everlasting eternality.  The values of things reside in their duration, in the process.

(4) Our value systems and appreciation of things should shift from the infinity and  eternality,  which  do  not  exist,  to  the  transient moments  which  happen  all  around  us. 

(5)  There  are  three cornerstones for our humanist principles: science, which tells us how things work; evolution, which tells us where we came from,  and  why  we  are  the  way  we  are;  happiness  principle, which tells us how we should conduct our life.

(6) The purpose of life is to pursue happiness during our life. A good life is a happy and exciting life. The ultimate measure of life’s success is the happiness in our life.

(7)Things do not have meanings, good or bad, we give them the meaning.[12]

Such principles are the premises for the concept of naturalistic meaning of life for they constitute the understanding of the reality for the naturalists. Hence, no room for Supernatural Source to give any objective meaning for the existence of humanity as a whole exists. The meaning of life in a naturalistic sense is to work towards the remediation and reconciling of social ills and conflicts, to help create a peaceful,

cohesive and tranquil social environment and world-state. To help others realize and

attain their highest potential possible.

Nevertheless, meaning in the naturalistic point of view can be easily selfish or

immoral since there is no set worth living style as meaningful. Anyone can consider

any worthless thing as meaning for his/her life, and that cannot be questioned by

anyone according to the naturalistic ideology which proposes relativistic meaning of

life.

1.5 Supernaturalistic Meaning

While naturalism suggests to no specific and ultimate purpose for human existence, presumably people will consider more satisfactory a meaning like that of theistic religions or supernaturalism, for which human life exists in virtue of the fact that it has been created by God and its ultimate purpose and meaning is to contribute to God’s design. As far as supernaturalism is concerned for the expectation of providing an ultimate meaning of life, the basic premise which the very existence of God has to be primarily established, or else life would have no meaning. For instance, Wittgenstein claims that “to believe in God means to see that life has a meaning” and “to understand the question about the meaning of life. “Similarly, Dummett claims that only “religious faith gives a meaning to our life. “Among countless others, historic representatives of supernaturalism in the Near-Eastern ancient world and in subsequent Western history are Qoheleth, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards, Pascal, and Tolstoy.[13] Meaning in life requires the existence of some supernatural realm or supernatural beings. That is to say: meaning has only been thought possible if there is a supernatural realm in which we can achieve eternal salvation, or from which a divine being bestows meaning upon our mortal human lives. With their rejection of supernaturalism, and its associated religious doctrines, naturalists are forced to abandon this conception of meaning. The classic example coming from Christian theology which argues that meaning is a function of both God (a supernatural being) and everlasting life in heaven (a supernatural realm).Hence, God is the basis for anything that might be called meaningfulness in life. Supernaturalism in general is the claim that life is meaningless if the only world that exists is the one known by physics. Meaning in life must come from a spiritual realm that one relates to in the appropriate way. Roughly, supernaturalism maintains that God’s existence, along with “appropriately relating” to God, is both necessary and sufficient for securing a meaningful life, although different accounts can be given as to the nature of this relationship. A supernaturalist theory[14] implies that the relevant purpose beyond one’s pleasure as such to seek out is a relationship with a spiritual realm, or that such a relationship is the relevant way to transcend one’s animal nature or to make one’s life worthy of great pride or admiration. But this objection from naturalists assumes without justification that human life has a purpose and meaning only if it is part of God’s design, specifically, only if it contributes to that design. Such assumption raises the question: In what sense has God’s design an ultimate purpose and meaning? This end up in the dilemma: Either God’s design has an ultimate purpose and meaning as it is part of an even higher design, or it has an ultimate purpose and meaning in itself. Both horns of this dilemma present difficulties.[15] Still the supernaturalist position can be plausibly viewed as possessing three distinct yet related dimensions: metaphysical, epistemological, and relational-axiological. Metaphysically, it is argued that God’s existence is necessary in order to ground a meaningful life because, for example, conditions necessary for securing a meaningful existence like objective value are most plausibly anchored in an entity like God. In addition to the metaphysical dimension, supernaturalism often requires, at some level, orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice), although much debate exists on the details. God’s existence may be a necessary condition for securing a meaningful life, but it is generally thought that one must additionally relate to God in some relevant way in the epistemological and axiological dimensions.[16]

---

[1] IEP, "Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives," http://www.iep.utm.edu/mean-ana/ (accessed on 2 December, 2014).

[2] Dictionary.com, “Meaning,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning(accessed on 2

December, 2014).

[3] Jeffrey Gordon, "The Question of the Meaning of Life: Answerable or Unanswerable?"

https://philosophynow.org/issues/73/The_Question_of_the_Meaning_of_Life_Answerable_or_ Unanswerable (accessed on 2 December, 2014).

[4] IEP, "Meaning of Life”

[5] George Kleftaras and Evangelia Psarra,"Meaning in Life, Psychological Well-Being and Depressive Symptomatology: A Comparative Study" http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.34048 (accessed on 2 December, 2014).

[6] Bob Hurt, "The Meaning, Value, and Purpose of Life"http://bobhurt.com/articles/philosophy%20-%20Meaning,%20Value,%20and%20Purpose%20of%20Life.pdf (accessed on 2 December, 2014).

[7] Carlo Cellucc, "Knowledge and the Meaning of Human Life," http://www.naturalism.org/Knowledge%20and%20the%20meaning%20of%20life.pdf (accessed on 6 December, 2014).

[8] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Meaning of Life," http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/#toc (accessed on 6 December, 2014).

[9] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Meaning of Life"

[10] Thaddeus Metz, “New Developments in the Meaning of Life,” www.centenary.edu/attachments/.../metznewdevelopments.pdf (accessed on 6 December, 2014). 

[11] Todds Hammer, “Naturalism and the Meaning of Life,” https://toddshammer.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/naturalism-and-the-meaning-of-life/ (accessed on 6 December, 2014).

[12] Wangqiu, “The Secular Humanist Principle,” http://purpose-of-life-1.blogspot.in/2008/12/secular-humanist-principle.html (accessed on 6 December, 2014). 

[13] Cellucc, "Knowledge and the Meaning of Human Life"

[14] In addition to God-based supernaturalist theories, there are soul-based theories, where meaning in life is thought to be a function, not so much of God, but rather of having an indestructible soul whereby immortality is possible. 

[15] Thaddeus Metz, Meaning in Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 79.

[16]Cellucc, "Knowledge and the Meaning of Human Life"