Omphalism

Omphalism is the claim that the universe is not as old as the empirical evidence dictates because it was created fully formed with the appearance of age. It is also known as Last Thursdayism. But the concept is equally (in)valid for any conceivable time in the past.It could be the case that we were all magicked into existence only moments ago with full living memory of our existence prior to that point. Along with empirical evidence of a planet and indeed a universe that is billions of years old.The reason I bring this up is because omphalism seems to have a certain hold over people who are otherwise fully functioning members of the pro-science contingent. Those who are happy to expound the virtues of empirical evidence with regard to the age of the Earth and universe in conversations with Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) suddenly become all coy about how old they believe the Earth is in conversations about omphalism. Rather than evaluate omphalistic claims in the context of what they have clearly stated they believe about the empirical conclusions with regard to these matters they instead suddenly profess agnosticism.History suggests that omphalism is a creationist invention deployed to deny the validity of empirical evidence. But even putting that aside.........Is it reasonable for those who repeatedly claim confidence and validity in the empirical conclusion that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old to also hold an agnostic position with regard to the non-empirical (indeed I would say anti-empirical) conclusion that the universe could have been created less than 10,000 years ago? Or indeed even last Thursday.And by agnosticism I don't mean lack of absolute certainty. But I guess we can come to that if promoted.This is an "Is it Science" topic. If promoted.

Hi
Myself and nwr have had a private message chat and he says that he is happy to discuss. We both agree that "Is it Science" may not be the best place for it as neither of us are claiming that there is any empirically evidenced difference between the omphalist and non-omphalist universe. It is thus essentially a philosophical question about belief. He suggested the miscellaneaous topics forum. I suggested the faith and belief area. Wherever you think really.And - for the record - I wasn't trying to present nwr's position in the OP at all. I was representing only my take on this topic and assumed that he would present himself in opposition if it was promoted.

It is probably worth mentioning that this OP was prompted by a discussion that started elsewhere. Here Message 174 and upthread.

Well the biblical omphalist disagrees. He says that the Earth has physically existed for less than 10,000 years as per the bible and that any empirical evidence to the contrary is deceptive. Likewise a Last Thursdayist might say that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn told him that the empirical evidence is deceptive because the IPU created the universe as it is less than a week ago. Well that is the whole point. A biblical omphalist says that scientific practises are irrelevant and that he has a superior method of "knowing" that contradicts the empirical evidence. Likewise Last Thursdayists. Except that those who have actually advocated omphalism "seriously" (as you have described those beliefs you feel it appropriate to declare your agnosticism towards) have done so on the basis that the bible is true and the empirical evidence is misleading. Specifically regarding the age of the Earth. Except that we do. Don't we? Do you really believe it equally likely that the Earth was created last Thursday as you do that is was created billions of years ago? You say go with the empirical evidence. But the whole point of omphalism is that the empirical evidence is deceptive and not to be trusted as reliable. Thus you cannot be advocating empiricism whilst declaring yourself to be agnsotic with regard to omphalism. The two are mutually exclusive.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you believe in the validity of empirical evidence? Because according to omphalists "no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable".So this isn't just about the age of the Earth. It is about simultaneously pronouncing belief in the validity of empirical evidence whilst claiming agnosticism towards something which denies the validity of empirical evidence. But those who have advocated omphalism disagree with you. Why do you get to tell them what they believe? And this isn't just about the age of the Earth. It is about the validity of empirical evidence. The whole point of omphalism is that the empirical evidence is deceptive and not to be trusted as reliable. Thus you cannot be advocating empirical conclusions whilst declaring yourself to be agnostic with regard to omphalism. The two are mutually exclusive not just with regard to the age of the Earth but also with regard to the validity of empirical evidenceAs do those who have advocated omphalism. The omphalist is making a statement about the length of time that the Earth has physically existed. What metaphysical claim do you think the omphalist is making?

Whilst the omphalists believe something that is mutually exclusive to that. Namely that the age of the Earth is NOT determined by our empirical experiences. Except that the biblical omphalist disagrees with you as to what is evidence and what is not. They consider the age of the Earth as determined by biblical chronology to be reliable and the age of the Earth as determined by empirical results to be essentially worthless.So I ask you - How can you claim confidence in one conclusion whilst simultaneously claiming to be entirely agnostic about the mutually exclusive alternative?This is like saying that you are confident that there is a computer on your desk whilst simultaneously saying you are wholly agnostic about the absence of a computer on your desk. It doesn't add up.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your entire position here is founded on the false assumption that omphalist claims about time and physical reality mean something other than what they are actually saying. Something metaphysical. Yet the those who actually advocate omphalism blatantly disagree with you on this.The very term omphalos comes from the book Omphalos — An Attempt to Untie The Geological Knot. The clue is in the title. But even a cursory look at this will confirm that the entire premise of the book is that there is a contradiction between the conclusions of empiricism and the conclusions of biblical literalism with regard to the age of the Earth. A contradiction that the author reconciles by essentially declaring empirical evidence as illusory.And here is a more modern take on omphalism. Again the conflict with empiricism is the entire point of the thesis. You have redefined omphalism to meet your own arguments. But nobody including the omphalists agrees with your definition.

Oh so you are not agnostic to all forms of omphalism? Only some. Despite them all being identical in terms of empirical evidence and falsifiability. Why? What is the evidential difference? Well the Last Thursdayist denies the validity of empirical evidence in exactly the same way that the biblical omphalist does. But instead of biblical chronology he relies on "subjective evidence" as the basis of his Thursdayist conclusion.So what is the difference?

I will try to contain mt all too often overly fervent and belligenernt self. Yep. That is my undestanding too. Yes. Which is why theists often condemn the hypothesis on the basis that it requires a deliberately deceitful God. So I understand anyways. As a useful tool. No. I agree.But I still don't see how it is anything but contradictory for a proponent of empirical conclusions regarding the age of the Earth to claim to be wholly agnostic with regard to omphalistic claims regarding that same matter. One is advocating the empirical evidence as deceptive and unreliable whilst the other is advocating it as reliable. These two things are mutually exclusive.

Who knows? Does genuine belief or otherwise have any bearing on the logical or evidential validity of a position? In terms of stating ones agnosticism (or not) why would that matter?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If one finds oneself in an empirically consistent omphalistic universe then going forwards in time empiricism would presumably be as valid and useful as in a non-omphalistic universe.The difference in validity would apply only to ones conclusions regarding the past. Specifically pre the omphalistic creation date. Last Thursday in the case of last Thursdayism. In all cases of dates before that the empirical evidence would be deceptive and unreliable.That was my thinking anyway. Right or wrong. Well I think the contradiction is in the view of empirical evidence that belief in omphalism demands betwen past and future rather than in my thinking.But I am quite prepared to be wrong on that as I have given it little thought beyond the above statement.What do you think?

I still utterly fail to see why genuine belief in a position has any bearing whatsoever on it's logical or evidential validity? I was putting myself in the hypothetical position of being a last Thursdayist to make the point to Nwr that all forms of omphalism are evidentially identical in empirical terms. On what basis would you suggest that Last Thursdayism might be advocated? As I see it any omphalist of any flavour is going to claim two things:1) That all empirical evidence pertaining to anything prior to a given date (e.g. last Thursday) is deceptive and unreliable.2) That there is some non-empirical method of knowing when the real date of "creation" was (biblical chronology, subjective evidence, whatever) How is Last Thursdayism based on subjective evidence any more or less falsifiable or any more or less of a philosophical possibility than Last Thursdayism based on some other non-empirical form of "knowing" the real date of creation? Well if I say that the Last Thursdayist bases his Thursdayist conclusion on reading cloud formations rather than subjective evidence does that make you happier? Or are you suggesting that a Last Thursdayist should be considered as having no reason at all for making the specific claim of Last Thursday?My basic point is that if you claim to have a high degree of confidence in the empirical evidence and related conclusions regarding the age of the Earth it doesn't make sense to say that you are utterly agnostic with regard to any given omphalistic claim. You cannot both claim confidence in the Earth having existed for billions of years whilst simultaneously claiming to have no idea whether or not it has only existed for a week.

How much confidence would you say you have in the conclusion that the Earth has existed for billions of years?

My prior reply was somewhat brusque. So whilst I think that is the key question let me try and answer your points in a less fuller manner. Well there certainly seems to be something about me that inspires people to think that about me. In actual fact I am not claiming to diagnose or represent "the empiricists position" at all. Most empiricists can speak for themselves I am sure. My own position is that an objective reality exists and that we can investigate that and model it through empirical investigation. But that we can never knowingly obtain "truth" through empirical investigation and that we are in effect engaged in a form of never ending verisimilitude. To know "truth" requires that we knowingly have ALL of the possible evidence pertaining to any given truth and that is impossible without omniscience. And I certainly don't claim to be omniscient. Thus the necessary fact of incomplete evidence gives rise to the necessity for tentativity in empirical evidence based argument. I advocate tentativity in science as an absolute must and have got myself into scraps with those who consider such philosophical considerations pragmatically pointless many times before.The "Empricism Vs Omphalism" subject heading is derived from what I see as the contradiction between claiming a high degree of confidence in the empirically derived conclusions about the age of the universe whilst stating absolute agnosticism towards omphalistic claims on the same subject gained through a different epystemology. If one has high confidence in the belief that the Earth is billions of years old based on empirical evidence how can one be anything but correspondingly dubious about the claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old based on biblical omphalism? Which I don't disagree with at all. I am not certain that we weren't all created a minute ago, a week ago or whatever. But am I agnostic? Not really. Unless simple lack of absolute certainty qualifies. In which case I am agnostic about absolutely everything and the term becomes meaningless. If empiricism works going forwards then I would say that rationally we should consider the most viable method of investigation looking back as well. Omphalist claims that some entirely different epystemology is required to determine anything prior to a certain date rely on methods of "knowing" that cannot be demonstrated to be reliable. They may be "true" but I have no rational reason to think so. As long as empiricism works going forwards that is all the evidence available to us and I think the rational thing to do is apply it consistently.But on a less rational/formal basis I just think omphalism smacks of bullshit invented with the specific aim of being unfalisifiable.

What metaphysical claim are they making?Be specific.