Omphalism

No. But I don't claim to be agnostic towards last Thursdayism. I know the bible is true. Only if I am agnostic towrds last Thursdayism . But I am not. Don't tar me with your brush. What is the difference in terms of how valid or true the propoistion in question is? So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday.You agree that the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism equates to guessing that a form of omphalistic creation took place. You also agree that this amounts to randomly picking last Thursday as the date of this creation. Yet you consider this guess as a sufficiently reliable to warrant your agnosticism rather than scepticism.Meanwhile you continue to reject the biblically evidenced conclusion that the universe was brought into existence fully formed circa 4,000 years ago purely on the basis of philosophical bias against any form of biblical literalism of any sort.In summary — Your empirical conclusions have no validity, your agnosticism towards last Thurdayism makes no sense and your opposition to biblical omphalism is derived from subjective world view and philosophical bias alone.

But if the universe was created Last Thurday fully formed with your memories, then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and what you say you are knowing as true. You would still think that you know its true but you'd be wrong. And there's no way to show otherwise. No, even without you being able to admit your agnosticism to Last Thursdayism. You simply cannot know, whether or not you think you can, if the universe was created fully formed Last Thursday or not. Because its a 'it could've been' proposition. It could've been Last Thursday, or Wednesday, or 287 days ago... it doesn't matter when it was. Its the same philisophical proposition that a fully formed universed poofed into existence recently would be indistinguishable between the one we are thinking that we're currently observing. How could you show otherwise? No, as an unfalsifyable philisophical proposition we cannot have anything but agnosticism to it because we, quite literally, are unable to know if it is true or not. No, I reject it on the empirical evidence to the contrary. Swing!... and a miss.

Empirically? Yes. But the bible sheds a different light on matters. And the word of God indisputably exists whether you think the universe popped into existence last Thursday or otherwise. But the biblical evidence still suggests circa 4,000 years ago as the date of creation. So you advocate the validity of empirical evidence based on it’s long history of success. But simultaneously claim that you have no idea whether or not the world even existed prior to last Thursday?Please explain? Ah the arrogance of the empiricsist.

If your ego requires that you engage in these silly games of oneupmanship, then I will leave you to it.

If your ego requires that you invent definitions of phsyical quantites that are meaningless to anyone but yourself then the silly games are all of your own making.Enjoy.

Hi, Straggler. What is this obsession with my partisanship?
I thought we were debating your opinions on this topic, not mine.Seriously, people find you aggravating because you always want to polarize the debate. Can we just talk about the concepts without picking teams?----- That’s what I just asked you.
You have been pushing me incessantly to answer your questions (in fact, you do this in all threads you participate in), but you answer my question by asking it back at me?
Is this an interrogation or a debate?
I don’t want to be interrogated.
Answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours.----- This reminds me of a political discussion I recently had with my parents. They said, Communism just can’t work. I responded, Then, how do you explain how China has been so successful? Their response was a litany of human rights violations, denial of freedoms, etc. I then pointed out that their initial statement wasn’t that communism doesn’t treat people right, but that it doesn’t work.Logically, as long as you define success as fulfilling the basic tenets of the system I believe in, then, obviously, any system that is different from yours will not succeed.And, you’re doing exactly the same thing! Physical demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge in the empirical sense only! By asking for demonstrations of the effectiveness of other epistemologies, you are requiring all epistemologies be empirical!Basically, it sounds like the statement, Non-empirical epistemologies do not produce empirical knowledge.Well, hot damn, Straggler! You may be on to something there!

How would I distinguish between the/an old universe and one that was created Last Thursday?

You cannot. So on what basis are you advocating confidence in one and agnosticism towards the other?Although you say you are agnostic towards Last Thursdayism you don't seem to be very agnostic to me. Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is obviously made-up? Please explain.

Yawn. In Message 78, I presented all the explanations I have provided in this thread to answer the above. Here they are again:

Where did we decide that? If you are advocating agnosticism towards omphalism then why so reticent to declare how confident you are in the rival empirical conclusion and the basis of that conclusion? It may well be that your reasons are identical to mine in which case we have no real argument. Isn't common ground the aim here? If you want. But why do you want to remain on the fence? Do you not have a reasoned opinion on this matter? Isn't taking a position and arguing it the entire point of a debate board? Anyway let's have a quick recap of your position such as it is: I remain unclear as to why you don't want to answer that question. I remain unclear as to how you can state belief in the empirical conclusion whilst simultaneously denying that one epistemology can be considered superior to another. This all seems very evasive and contradictory. But have it your way. Not exactly. But I will answer my own question if it makes you happy. It is only possible to demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing if it can in practise tell us something about the reality that exists external to our own minds that is shared with others and can thus be verified independently. It doesn't have to be empirical in principle. Nor does every single conclusion need to be independently verified. But the method of knowing does have to meet that criteria in order for conclusions made on that basis to to even possibly be distinguished from faith based belief (or just assumption). Dude one thing I absolutely do not do (usually at the expense of brevity and succinctness) is evade questions. Anything you think I am not answering feel free to pursue me on and I absolutely guarantee that I will answer it. Will you do the same? I didn't say that other epistemologies cannot work. I said that if you are unable to demonstrate that it works then you are simply assuming that it does on faith. Maybe reading cloud formations really can lead to reliable conclusions regarding the mood of an entirely undetectable and non-intervening god. But why on Earth would we take that possibility seriously? Well then provide the criteria upon which omphalistic claims are being made and the basis for why these criteria are logically valid. Provide a means of determining "success" that is logically valid and then you might have an argument. As things stand you don't. No. I am asking that they are demonstrably reliable. If you can think of a way of demonstrating the reliability of a form of knowing without it's claims being detectable by anybody else then I am all ears. No. I am arguing a practical point. Not one of a priori philosophical bias. If the method of knowing from which omphalism (or whatever) is derived is unable to demonstrate itself as reliable to anyone else then on what basis are the conclusions derived by means of that form of knowing knowledge rather than belief? And you would be onto something if you could tell us how logically a form of knowing (ideally one relevant to claims of omphalism for the sake of the topic) can be established as reliable unless it tells us something about the reality that is shared, common and detectable by others? Oh dear. Yet again it seems that I am being caricatured as some sort of wild eyed empiricist who denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured or mathematically modelled. This is of course utter nonsense. I have never said any such thing. But it is easier for those preaching the gospel of agnosticism to convince themselves that anyone who does not adhere to the tenet of the unknowable must be doing so on the basis of some imbecilic black and white tautology. In fact all I am doing (all I have ever done) to inspire this reaction is ask the following:1) On what basis is the conclusion made?
2) Is the form of knowing on which the conclusion was made demonstrably reliable (i.e. demonstrably superior to guessing)?
3) If the form of knowing applied to draw the conclusion in question (omphalism in this case) is not demonstrably reliable then how does confidence in this conclusion differ from faith?
4) If the belief in question is effectively faith based why would I be any less sceptical of this particular conclusion than any of the other entirely unevidenced and unfalsifiable logical possibilities that can be to plucked from the collective arse of human imagination?Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You seem to be simply saying that omphalism is a logical possibility that cannot ever be refuted. Even in principle. If that is simply your criteria for PAP agnosticism then we are back to all of the other such beings, entities and scenarios that can be made equally irreutable in principle.Imagine that there is an IPU that is NOT omnipotent and having created our universe is now just unable to ever interract with it ever again because she exists in an entirely different plane of reality. Are you agnostic towards this entirely unknowable IPU concept?Last Thursdayism is every bit as much of a parody of genuine biblical omphalism as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a parody of belief in God. How can you justify advocating agnosticism towards Last Thursdayism whilst denying the validity of the IPU on the basis that it is obviously made-up?

I guess the confusion is coming from my acknowledgment of PAP agnosticism while also doubting the claim.Last Thursdayism? IPU?"I don't know, but I doubt it."Biblical Omphalism?"Falsified."

Good grief CS are you saying that you think these conclusions unlikely to be true? Falsified? But biblical omphalism is as unfalsifiable as Last Thursdayism surely? The empirical evidence is identical in both scenarios.

In the sense that they are post-hoc, 'it could have been', rationalizations without evidence, or any reason to think so, and simply left as philosophical possibilities, yes. But not in the sense that I have weighed up the possibilities and determined the likelihood of each and found one to be lower than the other. I don't think we can do that. I don't think so. With Biblical Omphalism, we have the addition of 6000 years (minus a few days) of evidence to consider that suggests that the Earth is, in fact, older.Unless the omphalist counters with a 'well, it could have been...' post-hoc rationalization that I would simply doubt for the above reasons.

Your proclamations of doubt and your denial of the validity of relative likelihood seem contradictory. So you don't think that the empirical conclusion is more likely to be correct than the Last Thursday conclusion? Then in what sense do you "doubt it"?So you don't think the IPU is more likely to not exist than to exist? Then in what sense do you "doubt it"? Only if you assume that Last Thursdayism isn't true. On what basis do you make that assumption? Your claims of doubt, confidence and agnosticism seem contradictory.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.