Omphalism

On what basis do you conclude that it is doubtful? And if thei stated form of evidence (subjective evidence, reading cloud formations, whatever) cannot be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that are any more reliable than simply guessing..........?Then surely their conclusion remains equally as "doubtful" as if they just claimed that Last Thursday was the point of creation for no reason whatsoever?

You advocate empirical evidence as the only valid form of evidence yet you distinguish between two empirically identical omphalistic claims.I think you are lacking a coherent evidential argument here.

You seem to be advocating belief itself as some sort of "evidence" upon which to elevate some claims over others. Is this the case? Dude you are the one making a distinction between Last Thursdayism being claimed on some form of non-empirical evidence and it being claimed for no reason at all. I don't see there being any difference in terms of validity or reliability.Now apparently you don't either?

Here Message 13 "The point is that if you don't tie your concepts to empirical data, then all kinds of games can be played." They both deny the validity of empirical evidence with regard to the age of the universe and they both advocate an alternative non-empirical epystemology as a means of determining the age of the universe. So in what way are the philosophically different such that you can reject one and claim agnosticism towards the other? What metaphysical claim are they making? Be specific.

Randomly guessing is just another way of saying that a choice has been made with no evidential reason right? We can agree on that surely. If a claim is made on the basis of a form of "evidence" that is indistinguishable from guessing in terms of reliability then what is the evidential difference? Other than the fact that in one case the person believes that they are not guessing. How can you investigate a form of evidence that is indistinguishable in terms of reliability of conclusion to randomly guessing? Why? We all agree that any omphalistic universe is indistinguishable from a non-omphalistic universe. But now you want to distinguish between different omphalistic universes.Last thursday omphalist universe = Empirical universe = Biblical omphalist universeBut Last thursday omphalist universe does not equal Biblical omphalist universe. How does that work? Only if there are non-empirical forms of evidence that are distinguishable from guessing in terms of demonstrable reliability.If not then you are simply elevating one possibility over another on the basis of belief alone. And I don't see how that is justifiable.

Well if this hypothetical form of non-empirical evidence that can be demonstrably distinguished from guessing exists then you have a point. If it doesn't then I am not sure that you do. If your hypothetical form of evidence exists.

If you have confidence in empiricism as a method of drawing conclusions about the past how can you have confidence in an epystemology that denies the validity of empiricism with regard to drawing conclusions about the past?You have simply transferred the problem from confidence in opposing conclusions to confidence in opposing epystemologies. Agnosticism is a declaration about belief. If you have confidence in empiricism and it's conclusions how can you be anything but dubious about something that denies the validity of empiricism? Not quite. In the case of omphalism there is a factor you have missed. Omphalistic claims are unfalsifiable claims made about some specific point in the past. Thus we do have some rationale on which to base our empiricism. The evidence of empiricism having been viable since Last Thursday (or whatever).If empiricism works going forwards from that point 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 the ONLY evidence available to us and I think the rational thing to do is apply it consistently.

Not according to actual advocates of omphalism it isn't. Any empirical evidence pertaining to the date prior to "creation" is deceptive and illusory as far as they are concerned. Actual omphalists deny the validity and veracity of empirical evidence and conclusions pre-creation date. I would have thought this much was indisputable by the very definition of omphalism? But see the links in msg 28 if you need evidence of this from actual omphalists themselves. Yes and I have asked you how much confidence you have in that form of evidence and that conclusion? On the basis of epystemological consistency. The basis on which we advocate empiricism is surely practical not philosophical? It works. It renders conclusions that are demonstrably and consistently superior to simply guessing. This is exactly the same basis on which I would advocate it’s consistent application in the face of omphalistic claims. The omphalist agrees that empiricism works going forwards but denies it’s validity beyond a certain point in the past (Last Thursday or whenever). The omphalist instead proposes some other method of "knowing" as a means by which to have drawn their conclusion regarding the true date of creation. But unless they can demonstrate that this form of knowing is reliable why should we treat their claim as any different to any other unfalsifiable human invented nonsense?For example: If a proponent of biblical omphalism was able to make testable predictions based on his interpretation of the bible dismissing his biblically derived omphalism would be unjustified. But if he cannot demonstrate the reliability of the epystemology upon which he is making his omphalistic claims then why would we do anything but dismiss them? So you are equally agnostic to any given omphalistic claim? Well I dispute the validity of that conclusion as well. Albeit on slightly different grounds.There are an infinite number of possible omphalisms. Biblical omphalism pertaining to < 10,000 years ago, Last Yearism, Last Monthism, Last Thursdayism, Last Wednesdayism, Yesterdayism, 1 hour agoism, Last Minutism, Last Secondism, Last 1.1 seconds agoism, Last 1.11 seconds agoism, Last 1.111 seconds agoism, Last 1.1111 seconds agoism etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum. All omphalistic universes are indistinguishable from a non-omphalistic universe and from each other and there are an infinite number of them possible. So from a purely statistical point of view the chances of any particular claim of omphalism being correct are 1 out of infinity.Thus we can confidently say that it is deeply improbable that any specific omphalistic claim is correct. Do you agree?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

WTF? This entire discussion and this entire topic resulted from your assertion that we must necessarily be agnostic about all claims of "metaphysical truth". My entire point is that omphalists are not making a metaphysical claim. They are making a very physical claim. A claim about the length of time the universe has physically existed. If you are unable to state what the "metaphysical truth" omphalists are advocating actually is then you really have no argument whatsoever do you?

I have had a subjective experience and on the basis of this I have concluded that the universe was omphamistically created at 1AM on December the 12th 2009. All empirical evidence pertaining to any date prior to that is illusory and unreliable albeit internally consistent. Can you explain to me why the genuineness (or otherwise) of my belief in the validity of this subjective experience has any bearing on your agnosticism towards this conclusion?

Why does the perceived genuineness of my belief have any bearing on your conclusion with regard to the evidential validity of Last Thursdayism?Seriously I don't get where you are coming from on this at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then on what basis do you judge the claim? How can we test any omphalistic claim? Yet you have already stated that you reject some (biblical ophalism), are PAP agnostic to others (no reason at all Last Thursdayism) and are TAP agnostic to others (Last Thursdayism concluded from the reading of cloud formations).Your form of agnosticism seems more like social response to what others claim to believe than an evidentially consistent conclusion of any sort. The last couple of times you have accused me of tautologies the ensuing discussion has resulted in the following:1) Agnosticism towards the existence of cheese
2) The claim that gods and dogs are equally evidenced Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Huh? Surely you can read this and see why it might seem nonsensical? Can you explain what on Earth you mean here? A form of evidence can only be considered as such if it is demonstrably superior to guessing in terms of reliability. Yes? I suspect that what you are advocating here might amount to citing belief as a form evidence in itself whether you realise it or not. But let's carry on and find out.

Well on what basis do you deem any one epistemology as preferable or superior to any other? Why do you trust empirical conclusions over biblical omphalist conclusions regarding the age of the Earth? For example. Yes. The fact that it works. Because the omphalist is denying the validity of empirical evidence pertaining to all evidence prior to a certain date and instead claiming the validity of a rival form of knowing in order to deduce the "true" date of creation. That is the entire point of omphalism. The omphalist claims to have a non-empirical method of knowing the date of creation. Unless they can demonstrate that this method of knowing is reliable there is no rational reason to treat their claims as any different to any other unfalsifiable claim. Why is omphalism any more deserving of agnosticism than things like the IPU? ALL empirical conclusions? No. But a Last Thursdayist is by definition saying that evolution over billions of years is a false conclusion. Despite being empirically consistent. Because they are claiming that empirical evidence pertaining to the past is unreliable beyond last Thursday.If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion? So how can you say that there is no conflict of epistemologies? Well maybe it can. But that is not omphalism as I understand it. What you have done is redefine omphalism into a sort of Descartesian evil demon type scenario where all empirical evidence is illusory. Does this matter? Yes. Because in your scenario (a sort of ongoing omphalistic version of the brain in a jar) all empirical evidence is illusory and there is no method of knowing anything beyond ones own current existence. Whilst omphalism (as I understand it) claims that empirical evidence works from a certain point (e.g. Last Thursday) but that another form of knowing is required to know when creation actually occurred. Empirical evidence? Yes. But omphalists claim to have an alternative form of evidence which is more reliable and from which they can deduce the date of creation. So - No an omphalist would not agree that all evidence is epistemologically meaningless in an omphalistic scenario. Hence the conflict of epistemologies. I don't. I am suggesting that having any confidence in methods of knowing that are incapable of demonstrating themselves to be even vaguely reliable is irrational. If what you are talking about here is some inherently indeterminate omphalistic equivalent of the philosophical brain in the jar scenario - Then yeah I am as shoulder shruggingly agnostic about that form of omphalism as I am about being a brain in a jar. Of course I don’t really give any credence at all to such pointless possibilities (for the sake of sanity if nothing else) but they are by their very design unknowable. But what do we mean by agnostic here? Unfalsifiable? Unknowable?If something is entirely unknowable by any evidential means then from where has the concept arisen? If it is entirely unknowable in any evidential terms then where else can it have originated as concept but in ones imagination? And if the very concept under consideration necessarily originates from ones imagination then why give it any more credence than any of the other multitude of entirely un-falsifiable scenarios we are capable of pulling out of our arses?

Well I think this leads to inconsistencies. If you are wiling to play along I’d like to pretend that I am a biblical omphalist. Is that OK?If so I would ask you to remind us exactly on what basis you reject biblical omphalism whilst remaining agnostic to other forms of omphalism?Because it seems to me that, your world view aside, my claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago fully formed is just as valid as your empirical conclusion that it is billions of years old. Tell me why it isn't?