Battleground God

[Tiberius]

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.

Yes, you can duplicate the experiment, but the point of the Last Thursday argument is to show that you have no way of telling the difference between a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and a universe that is only X old (where X is a specific time) but has been made to look 13.7 billion years old.

So, from this we can establish that even though you can do the experiment, as soon as you have done it, you have no way of telling whether the experiment you just did actually took place, or whether the universe had been created to make you think the experiment had just taken place. At any particular moment in what we perceive as time, the universe could have been created with everything set up for that moment, all memories in place, etc.

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.

No, and I don't make the claim that creationists are illogical in their claim, unless they base it on other logical fallacies (like claiming "the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old, therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old"). The arguments are completely different if this is the case.

In fact, the Last Thursday argument was created in order to show creationists who make the claim that the Earth "could be" 6,000 years old, that their argument also works for any other period of time. It nulls their argument by showing that what their argument logically entails is a generalisation. In other words, you cannot use their argument to show that the Earth could be 6,000 years old without also conceding that it could be older, or younger. The argument holds because of this. It is logically valid.

Quoting from the article on Last Thursdayism at RationalWiki.

There is no logical way to demonstrate "Last Thursdayism" is false. Equally there is no logical way to demonstrate that a (non-interventionist) god does not exist, or that we are not part of a complex computer simulation. In all cases we must ask what evidence exists to show that these suppositions may be true. If there is none then we are justified in ignoring them.

As such, I do not believe in the Last Thursday hypothesis as a reality, since there isn't any evidence from my perspective to support it. However, this doesn't mean it can't be true. The claim is unfalsifiable, as is any claim to the age of "existence", in terms of philosophical proofs.

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.

Yes, but then the Last Thursdayism argument states that the universe was created in it's present state (i.e. with light on its way from stars, memories in place, etc). This isn't a valid objection to Last Thursdayism; only a valid objection to the Omphalos hypothesis if we are assuming the "creator" isn't dishonest. If we assume a dishonest "creator" then the position of light is irrelevant.

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'm using it as a logical argument because technically speaking it is logical. It is an unfalsifiable claim. It cannot be proven false using logic.

Yes, it is used as satire as I mentioned above, when using it towards creationists who make the same argument, but it is only used as satire to show that you can insert any number into the argument and it still works. This doesn't invalidate the argument; it only makes it a generalization.

As for "Why create false memories?", that question is as irrelevant as the question about light. It can be answered simply by assuming the "creator" is dishonest and created it that way. It doesn't change the logic of the argument at all. The details behind the "why" aren't the issue here, but whether such an event *could* have happened. Since the argument is unfalsifiable, it could indeed have happened.

I feel I need to state this again though: Just because something could have happened, doesn't mean we should believe it did, or that it did happen. Could means could. It's a possibility, and it can't be ignored in philosophy, else you end up with a biased worldview, as the test exposed.