Battleground God

[In This Mind]

It is not a fallacy, mainly because I was using it in a way to show you that your statement *could* be wrong. A "what if" fallacy takes the form "What if X, then you must do Y". Never did I insinuate that we shouldn't disbelieve evolution because "what if the universe was made last thursday".

The Last Thursday argument has been used by philosophers before. It isn't new. Unless you can disprove it via a logical argument, your whining about logical fallacies that I haven't even committed are just going to annoy me.

I already refuted it via a logical argument. It's irrational.

Let's go ahead with your basic 'the universe appeared last Thursday'. I still have irrevocable proof that evolution is true because evolution still works. I can duplicate the experiment. It's part of the basic framework of reality. If reality were a computer program, evolution is the code used to write it, thus it exists even if the first time the program were run happens to be today. Using the 'universe appeared last Thursday' argument is completely irrational because it is, as I pointed out, a complete bullshit hypothetical along the same lines as the 'philosophical hypothetical' that you are all just figments of my imagination.

If you are going to entertain the 'universe appeared last Thursday' as a valid and 'logical' idea, then you have absolutely no standing to say Creationists are illogical because their claim is just as logical an idea as the universe appeared last Thursday. In fact, it's the same exact logic, which is why I called you a fundie. You entertain the notion the universe appeared last Thursday, their notion is the universe was created last Thursday and they use the exact same explanation for why everything appears the way it does as your 'hypothetical'. It's irrational.

To even entertain the Omphalos hypothesis you must disregard several aspects of reality. Start with light takes time to travel, so if the universe suddenly appeared last Thursday we would not see any stars. It takes over minutes for the light from the sun to reach the earth. Seriously, you are using as your 'logical' argument something that is often used as satire. It fails the basic 'why' test. 'Why' create false memories?

---

I think the main problem on the Theory of Evolution question lies in the wording. By mentioning the word "true" instead of "probable" they are asking about an absolute truth claim. No scientific theory, no matter how much evidence there is for it, is absolute proof of anything.

They used the statement 'essentially true'. As in, do you assume this is generally correct?

They played a semantic game by making two questions that asked different things and then claimed the answers were equivalent.