A created-with-backstory argument for creationism?

[Beet]

Could an argument for creationism be made as such. First, I accept that all scientific evidence points to the earth being millions of years old, that humans evolved from other species, and that there is no particular scientific validity to theories such as intelligent design. Second, I accept that God created all of this "as is" about 6,000 years ago. In other words, God created the world with a "backstory" and this is what scientists are uncovering.

It seems like a much simpler argument than trying to contest against science on its own grounds.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

[Beet]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

[pbrower2a]

The problems are

(1) violation of the law of parsimony. Basically one could awaken every day and claim that all that happened before is an illusion because everything that happened before is in fact a creation of the moment. Thus someone 30 has an instantly-created world in which every 'experience' is the result of something that happened earlier.

That is a violation of the rule of parsimony in science. One looks for the simplest explanation.

(2) such an explanation makes God a forger of natural history... and one thing that would destroy any credibility that He could ever have because as a forger He would also be a liar.

[DemPGH]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

[DC Al Fine]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

DemPGH on what basis do you believe the material world to exist?

[Sewer]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

DemPGH on what basis do you believe the material world to exist?

He lives on it?

[DemPGH]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

DemPGH on what basis do you believe the material world to exist?

He lives on it?

Ha! Put bluntly.

It's because I can interact with the material world, which is linear (yesterday, last year, ten years ago) and is governed by laws that are predictable and observable in a controlled environment. That's anything from rudimentary experiments with gravity to planting an apple tree to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. If I can observe, test, verify, falsify. . . it's real.

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

[DC Al Fine]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

DemPGH on what basis do you believe the material world to exist?

He lives on it?

Ha! Put bluntly.

It's because I can interact with the material world, which is linear (yesterday, last year, ten years ago) and is governed by laws that are predictable and observable in a controlled environment. That's anything from rudimentary experiments with gravity to planting an apple tree to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. If I can observe, test, verify, falsify. . . it's real.

In my dreams, I can interact with my dreamworld, which is linear and governed by laws etc. Is my dreamworld material?

[bedstuy]

If you believe that, I've got a bridge I created a few weeks ago in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you. 

Obviously, it's possible in some sense.  But, I don't think anyone is willing to hang their hat on God basically choosing to fool humanity like he's the bad guy in the Matrix.  That kind of thinking is only attractive in a freshman year philosophy class or during an acid trip or both.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

[Beet]

Lack of parsimony? Parsimony is the whole reason why this omphalos hypothesis is appealing to begin with. You don't have to argue all this philosophical junk about intelligent design, first causes, C.S. Lewis and other encyclopedias full of apologetics. It's something you can explain in two sentences. It's certainly not a replacement for apologetics, but in terms of the complexity-to-return ratio it's a lot higher, IMO.

The stuff about God being a forger or deceiver makes no sense because "empirical data" hasn't deceived us one bit- that's the point. It's what we infer from the data that deceives us, but that's a choice that we infer. God never explicitly lied to humankind; he created a world where it's easy to make incorrect inferences, yes, and that would be a problem had God not explicitly told us that those inferences are incorrect, through his inspiration of the writing of Genesis. (Or at least this is how one could argue it from the perspective of a religious person)

For those who say "yeah but according to this, the world could have been created last Thursday, or Puff the Magic Dragon!" I say yes, sure. That's true. But it also misses the point. You see, Abrahamic religion has a more fundamental problem than proving its own validity. It first has to explain why contradictory evidence that contradicts the Bible. If one cannot refute contradictory evidence, one cannot even begin to build one's own position. One first needs an explanation for how Genesis could even be possible or plausible, before one can begin to argue that it is indeed an accurate description of history.

[Beet]

The other thing with the parsimony argument, no matter what evidence, you're looking at, taking it for face value is the most parsimonious explanation. So, if you are looking at evidence a rock is 2.9 million years old, then yes, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is indeed that old. However, if you are looking at the Bible, then the most parsimonious explanation is that it is a faithfully or attempted faithfully recording of real events. The alternative explanation that it was invented or made up is less parsimonious.

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

[DemPGH]

This is called the omphalos hypothesis and it's a legit philosophical thought experiment.

Fascinating. Although I don't get the criticisms that it suggests God intended to "deceive".  Incidentally, I'd like to check out this Natan Slifkin character at some point.

In addition to pbrower's post, I'll add this: the "deception" is overtly suggested by the fact that this little idea means that empirical data, which is at the heart of all science, cannot be trusted. In other words, let's say I find a rock and run a battery of tests. The tests come back that, give or take a tiny bit, the rock is 2.9 million years old. The Omphalos hypothesis (I was aware of it, but I didn't know that's actually what it was called - thanks for filling me in on that, Nathan) says that God could have created that rock a week ago, a year ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, and just made it "appear" 2.9 million years old depending upon the test result. Which is a really, really bad argument.

It's kind of an alternative to simply saying that scientists are full of BS, and is almost as bad as saying so!

DemPGH on what basis do you believe the material world to exist?

He lives on it?

Ha! Put bluntly.

It's because I can interact with the material world, which is linear (yesterday, last year, ten years ago) and is governed by laws that are predictable and observable in a controlled environment. That's anything from rudimentary experiments with gravity to planting an apple tree to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. If I can observe, test, verify, falsify. . . it's real.

In my dreams, I can interact with my dreamworld, which is linear and governed by laws etc. Is my dreamworld material?

Uh, no. And no, you can't interact with it. Unless you're schizophrenic.

The stuff about God being a forger or deceiver makes no sense because "empirical data" hasn't deceived us one bit- that's the point. It's what we infer from the data that deceives us, but that's a choice that we infer. God never explicitly lied to humankind; he created a world where it's easy to make incorrect inferences, yes, and that would be a problem had God not explicitly told us that those inferences are incorrect, through his inspiration of the writing of Genesis. (Or at least this is how one could argue it from the perspective of a religious person)

But see, that's like saying 2 + 2 does not = 4. It equals some other number. God says it equals 5. Or 13. Things can't work that way, and they don't. As to my example with the rock, you have the layer in which it was found plus isochron / radiometric dating which tell you how old it is. The two agree, and it works every time, which is why it is used. To say no, God created it some other arbitrary number of years ago is really, actually kind of juvenile.

Here's the thing: if isochron dating, carbon dating, and radiometric dating plus the rock strata all give the wrong indication of how old something is, then let's see God's method. As in, let's see God show up and demonstrate it. Because that's what's needed in the event that all of this is "wrong."

[DemPGH]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

To interject one word. . .

Fossils.

[Beet]

But see, that's like saying 2 + 2 does not = 4. It equals some other number. God says it equals 5. Or 13. Things can't work that way, and they don't. As to my example with the rock, you have the layer in which it was found plus isochron / radiometric dating which tell you how old it is. The two agree, and it works every time, which is why it is used. To say no, God created it some other arbitrary number of years ago is really, actually kind of juvenile.

Here's the thing: if isochron dating, carbon dating, and radiometric dating plus the rock strata all give the wrong indication of how old something is, then let's see God's method. As in, let's see God show up and demonstrate it. Because that's what's needed in the event that all of this is "wrong."

2 + 2 = 4 is a logical identity. Scientific claims about nature, however, are based on inferences. We infer that because in millions of experimental and practical tests, F = MA, this is a natural law that will also be true tomorrow. That's certainly a very good inference to make, but it's still an inference. All archaeological dating mechanisms rely on these inferences.

[afleitch]

But see, that's like saying 2 + 2 does not = 4. It equals some other number. God says it equals 5. Or 13. Things can't work that way, and they don't. As to my example with the rock, you have the layer in which it was found plus isochron / radiometric dating which tell you how old it is. The two agree, and it works every time, which is why it is used. To say no, God created it some other arbitrary number of years ago is really, actually kind of juvenile.

Here's the thing: if isochron dating, carbon dating, and radiometric dating plus the rock strata all give the wrong indication of how old something is, then let's see God's method. As in, let's see God show up and demonstrate it. Because that's what's needed in the event that all of this is "wrong."

2 + 2 = 4 is a logical identity. Scientific claims about nature, however, are based on inferences. We infer that because in millions of experimental and practical tests, F = MA, this is a natural law that will also be true tomorrow. That's certainly a very good inference to make, but it's still an inference. All archaeological dating mechanisms rely on these inferences.

Yes it is an inference and science has always been both honest and transparent about such things. However if you were to continue to engage in reductionism it ceases to become of any use whatsoever. I could say that I created the universe after taking a really huge sh-t and you could not disprove it. What you have with Christianity is merely a competing claim against scientific claims. Not only does it 'fail' when tested against scientific evidence it doesn't 'win' when tested against other competing claims unscientific or quasi scientific about the creation of the universe including the creation stories of other faiths.

I could argue for example that Zeus created the universe and then created a god for the Israelites to worship who was just an illusion and that therefore all of Christianity is the plaything of another god. Unfortunately, Zeus isn't feverently worshiped by several billion people, nor does anyone take seriously the theory that I may have crapped out the universe after a bad curry so any claims made that we did so fall on deaf ears. We do however have several billion Christians, including literalists who need what they believe to be true. That gives people clout to engage in these sorts of conversations with no real authority other than the authority they have by being so numerous in number.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

To interject one word. . .

Fossils.

And how do you prove that those fossils weren't simply created five minutes ago?  The point is, the whole theory of pre-aged creationism is inherently an untestable theory.  It is impossible to show that it is correct or incorrect.

[afleitch]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

To interject one word. . .

Fossils.

And how do you prove that those fossils weren't simply created five minutes ago?  The point is, the whole theory of pre-aged creationism is inherently an untestable theory.  It is impossible to show that it is correct or incorrect.

But does it make it a reasonable one to propose (i.e has more weight than Puff the Magic Dragon) in light of our understanding of the world and the processes that affect it? That's the problem; that some rather outlandish propositions are only given weight or at least more than a casual dismissal because of the numbers of people who line up behind it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And how do you prove that those fossils weren't simply created five minutes ago?  The point is, the whole theory of pre-aged creationism is inherently an untestable theory.  It is impossible to show that it is correct or incorrect.

But does it make it a reasonable one to propose (i.e has more weight than Puff the Magic Dragon) in light of our understanding of the world and the processes that affect it? That's the problem; that some rather outlandish propositions are only given weight or at least more than a casual dismissal because of the numbers of people who line up behind it?

That the universe must be reasonable is itself an outlandish proposition.  It has no duty to conform to our expectations of reasonable.  The axiom that the way things work proceeds in a logically inferable manner is a necessary one to apply the concept of science.  But the dogma that everything can be explained by science is just as much a religion as those which posit the existence of the divine in whichever form one chooses to believe in.  It's also a religion that has absolutely no attraction to me.

[John Dibble]

Sure, you can make that argument, same as I can argue that Puff the Magic Dragon created the universe five minutes ago to have it look older. The problem of lack of evidence is still there, though.

By that standard, what evidence do you have that Puff didn't do exactly that?

None, as it's practically impossible to prove a negative. Fortunately the burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

Exactly.  You are claiming that the universe has been in existence for more than five minutes.  What proof do you have?

Proofs are for math and logic, not science. Science deals with evidence, which I should note is the word I used. (something I've noted multiple times throughout the last few years) There is a significant amount of evidence for the universe being older than five minutes - since I'm pretty sure you know a good deal of it already I won't bother going over it. Since that's the way the evidence points and there is no contradictory evidence, that's what I find logical to believe. I'm not saying that it's impossible for the universe to be five minutes old, I just find there to be absolutely no reason to believe that. If you find evidence that indicates that to be true, let everyone know and they can re-evaluate their positions.

[Beet]

But see, that's like saying 2 + 2 does not = 4. It equals some other number. God says it equals 5. Or 13. Things can't work that way, and they don't. As to my example with the rock, you have the layer in which it was found plus isochron / radiometric dating which tell you how old it is. The two agree, and it works every time, which is why it is used. To say no, God created it some other arbitrary number of years ago is really, actually kind of juvenile.

Here's the thing: if isochron dating, carbon dating, and radiometric dating plus the rock strata all give the wrong indication of how old something is, then let's see God's method. As in, let's see God show up and demonstrate it. Because that's what's needed in the event that all of this is "wrong."

2 + 2 = 4 is a logical identity. Scientific claims about nature, however, are based on inferences. We infer that because in millions of experimental and practical tests, F = MA, this is a natural law that will also be true tomorrow. That's certainly a very good inference to make, but it's still an inference. All archaeological dating mechanisms rely on these inferences.

Yes it is an inference and science has always been both honest and transparent about such things. However if you were to continue to engage in reductionism it ceases to become of any use whatsoever. I could say that I created the universe after taking a really huge sh-t and you could not disprove it. What you have with Christianity is merely a competing claim against scientific claims. Not only does it 'fail' when tested against scientific evidence it doesn't 'win' when tested against other competing claims unscientific or quasi scientific about the creation of the universe including the creation stories of other faiths.

I could argue for example that Zeus created the universe and then created a god for the Israelites to worship who was just an illusion and that therefore all of Christianity is the plaything of another god. Unfortunately, Zeus isn't feverently worshiped by several billion people, nor does anyone take seriously the theory that I may have crapped out the universe after a bad curry so any claims made that we did so fall on deaf ears. We do however have several billion Christians, including literalists who need what they believe to be true. That gives people clout to engage in these sorts of conversations with no real authority other than the authority they have by being so numerous in number.

This is where apologetics comes in.