My Last Thursdayism Challenge

[AV1611VET]

[deleted].

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread --- (and this is my thread --- lol)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Things appear older because things are older.



I disagree --- I think if you were there on Day One of the Creation, and you radiometrically-dated stuff, you'd get nearly the same readings as today.

Good ol' Omphalos saves the day again.

As much as I'd like to believe the universe was young on the day God created it --- I don't feel I can adequately defend that position.

You can barely defend the position that God created it -- mustn't tax your limited resources.

LT is deception --- pure and simple.

Then stop promoting it.

I'm speaking hypothetically here, but a third-party witnessing God on Creation Day would observe a stark difference between Last Thursdayism, Omphalism, and Embedded Age Creation.

A difference you are unable/unwilling to expound on is meaningless.

 

[FishFace]

I believe that after the moment of creation, it didn't just appear old, it was old.

A contradiction in terms.

Disagree? - tell us just what age means, if not the time in existence.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, tell you what...

It seems that we are in deperate need of a definition of "Last Thursdayism" that we can all agree on, regardless of what's been said previously on this thread. that way we can get to the heart of this matter instead of quibbling of little details.

What do you say?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Fair enough ---

QV PLEASE

Thank you. I'm also glad it's not 40 pages...! OTOH, I think the summary given here was also enough to get an understanding as to your views. (So, again, thank you for posting them.)

Now, then...

Of course I could still misunderstand your position, but I think

I believe that after the moment of creation, it didn't just appear old, it was old

makes it as clear as possible. Unfortunately, though, I have to side with jamielindas in that this is just a semantic dodge. Now, before getting all steamed up, let me explain that:

As others have said, how do you define "being X age" other than in terms of time elapsed? I get your "Adam was created 20" idea, but what does it mean for him to be 20? He was past puberty but didn't have a beer gut yet? ie He was physiologically comparable to a typical 20yo? If so, how is that different to appearing 20? In either case, he looks, walks and quacks like a 20yo, but only 10sec have elapsed since his creation. If not, then what? Saying that Adam is 20, and that that's critically different to appearing 20, is utterly worthless unless you can tell us what the difference actually is. What does "being 20" mean, if not "having existed for 20 years"?

To put it another way: what is the practical difference between appearing older and being older? You've said that you accept the scientific measurement of the age of the universe (current estimate around 13-15 billion, IIRC), right? That is, and can only be, determined by empirical measurement. But whether the universe is 13 billion years old or just appears that way, either way we will measure it empirically to be that age. So there is no way for us to tell whether Adam "appears" 20 or "is" 20, so what's the difference in real terms -- what's the point in making a distinction? It's a worthless distinction because we intrinsically cannot determine it. Ergo, actual embedded age and apparent embedded age are functionally equivalent. And hence, your position is essentially Omphalism. (And, hence, equivalent to LTism, which is just a generalization of Omph.)

To put it another another way: Wanna play a game? Here are three balls: o o o. This one -- o -- is the Magic Win Ball. The other two just look like it. If you pick the MWB, I will give you a 10-week vacation on a tropical island with Inge, a Swedish lingerie model. If you pick either of the other ones, I will stab you in the groin with a fork. OK, wanna play? Pick your ball! Come on, I even told you which one the MWB is -- you can't say fairer than that! Or do you think the game is, just possibly, a bit stupid and a bit rigged?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Yes --- I'll go with what scientists go with. If tomorrow they move the goalpost to, say, 10 billion years old, I'll go with that.

We all know how much you love that phrase "moving the goalposts"... it would help your case a bit if you actually knew what it meant and/or how to use it properly. To help you out: a goalpost defines a goal.

OK, so, moving them means changing the goal you have set for someone. That's not the same thing as changing your mind or correcting yourself or suchlike. It means asking someone to achieve a particular goal (for example -- just picking one randomly -- issuing a challenge on a forum) then, when they actually achieve the stated goal, claim that the goal was, in fact, something else. When a scientist is trying to find the age of the universe, the only goal is -- wow! -- to find the age of the universe. If they say "oops, it's not 13billion, it's 10" that means "oops, we thought we scored a goal last time, but we were wrong; we think we've scored one now, having corrected our mistake". The goal didn't change. Nobody moved the goalposts. See the difference? And, while we're here, see why science progresses?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

/thread --- (and this is my thread --- lol)

Ah... so I'm probably just wasting my time. Hmm. It's a pity that, when the IPU created you last Thursday, she didn't embed in you the stomach to follow through with what you start.

Still, ever the optimist, I'll put a few more ideas/questions to you.

Firstly, your tagline says "Science can take a hike" and you've proudly declared your lack of scientific knowledge and esteem of the same. OK, that's your prerogative, but then why do you say that the universe is 13byo (with accompanying Omphalosian explanation)? Why not just say that it's 6000yo because God said so and obviously the scientists must be wrong? Why accept this morsel of knowledge from an epistemology that you reject? Seems a little odd, that's all. And by odd I mean: arbitrary and/or contradictory.

Secondly (and somewhat relatedly), any Omphalosian stance seems to me to have an inherent limitation that bog-standard, vanilla-flavored literalism doesn't. Standard literalists can say "the Bible's right, so the scientists must be wrong" and move on. When questioned as to how they know the Bible is right, one possible answer often given is "it's consistent/it's historically accurate/it gets all these prophecies correct" etc etc. I think those claims are ... ahem, not perfect, shall we say ... but at least it's an attempt to establish a solid footing for accepting the Bible as Truth. But your position admits straight-up that the Bible and observation are, at least apparently, in contradiction. Once you start down that path, what basis are you left with for accepting the Bible as Truth? Historical accuracy? Nope. How do I know that the Israelites aren't just an embedded memory? The only way out is to completely and utterly beg the question: they're not an embedding because the Bible mentions them and the Bible is right because...? It's right! Because it's right! Because it's right! [sfx: stuck record]

 

[anunbeliever]

Explain Last Thursdayism without violating the literal interpretation of Genesis 5:5.

What has Adams reported age got to do with Last Thursdayism? If God created the world 6000 years ago to look millions of years old; and created Adam with an apparent age of 20; what does it matter as to how long Adam lived?

 

[J0hnSm1th]

I havent ruled Last Thursdayism out as a way to harmonize the apparent old age of the Earth with the young age implied by Genesis. Its much more plausible than YEC. Some say that makes God a deceiver. But i dont see a problem with it.

 

[Sojourner1]

Thread closed at the request of the OP.