A created-with-backstory argument for creationism?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Not that I particularly care for religious debates, but this one got me interested.  I don't think this argument makes sense from the start, because why would God create everything "as is" if what we see "as is" was already formed through evolution which, presumably, was also created by God?  Or does this argument imply that God did absolutely nothing until evolution advanced to a certain point?  Either I'm misunderstanding this, or there's a contradiction in the theory.

[Beet]

Not that I particularly care for religious debates, but this one got me interested.  I don't think this argument makes sense from the start, because why would God create everything "as is" if what we see "as is" was already formed through evolution which, presumably, was also created by God?

 

Because what we see wasn't created by evolution. It only appears as if it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly not. I am skeptical about religious debates as well, but I think this is the most simple, elegant theory there. What it does is reconcile the story of Genesis with the scientific evidence out there. It opens up a pathway whereas one can embrace both. If a convincing case for Christ is analogous to Life, and as they say, if 50% (or whatever percent) of Life is just showing up, then the omphalous hypothesis is the equivalent of 'showing up'. Showing up for life doesn't guarantee that you'll win at it, but you can't win if you don't show up.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not that I particularly care for religious debates, but this one got me interested.  I don't think this argument makes sense from the start, because why would God create everything "as is" if what we see "as is" was already formed through evolution which, presumably, was also created by God?  Or does this argument imply that God did absolutely nothing until evolution advanced to a certain point?  Either I'm misunderstanding this, or there's a contradiction in the theory.

To be fair, in Gosse's 1857 book, Omphalos, he never argued in favor of artificially created memories in the manner of Russell's five minute hypothesis.  His argument was that if God created the world at some point in the past, say six-thousand years ago, he necessarily had to create it as a functional system.  Thus trees would have growth rings despite never having grown until the moment of creation, Adam and Eve would have had navels (hence his title) despite having never been born, etc.  Thus in general, even tho the universe itself was not functioning before the moment of creation, it was necessary to have it appear to have been functioning before the creation in order for it to function properly from the moment it was put into service.

[Beet]

Although there are certainly some different angles that one can think about it from.

Instead of thinking, why would God create a world with a backstory? One could think, why would God create a world without a backstory? The latter is actually more natural. For instance, we humans, created in the image of God, also create things. And when we come the closest to the act of creating a world, we also infuse these with back-stories; only since we lack the powers of God, we call these things fantasy. But never have we seen a fantasy that begins as such: "Beet began writing these words, and they are describing a world with trees, skies, and oceans, and Beet created the first character, whose name is Adam, by writing his name down with a pen on these pages." Rather, we create our worlds as-is, because the backstory is part of the world.

The only difference is that we do not communicate with characters in our creations because they aren't real, so there would be no point. But if, for instance, Luke Skywalker were real, one could imagine George Lucas attempting to communicate with him sometime in the 1980s, if not earlier.

George Lucas (a.k.a. God):
"Luke, I am George Lucas. The world began 10 years ago, when I began to write A New Hope. The first characters are Darth Vader, Princess Leia, and the Captain of the Tantive IV, because they appear in the first chapter of the book."

Luke Skywalker:
"That's impossible. The Old Republic is a thousand years old, and it existed long before Darth Vader or Princess Leia! Here is all of my empirical evidence."

[DemPGH]

Well, this is another agree to disagree kind of thing. I do not believe that science and faith can be reconciled, and I don't really think that an attempt should be made to try to do so. They are completely different. Science concerns knowledge as a material, tangible thing, faith concerns belief in things like personal revelation, which is way different.

As to paleontology and archaeology, if there is a disagreement about whether or not a fossil belongs in the early Devonian period or the late Devonian period, that is inference. That a fossil is older than five minutes or five years is known. Why? Because fossilization is a process that takes an extremely long time in nature and happens under the right conditions, and often represents animals and plants that are no longer around. A fossil is not a pretty picture that we see while sashaying through the museum on our 4th grade field trip. That fossils are older than five minutes or five years is in fact known. "Bog bodies" like the Tollund Man were not put there ten minutes ago, and it's really absurd to figure so because of real things, like an analysis of the dirt under them, and because of carbon decay. That's real. That God might have stuck it there back around Thanksgiving is something different - B-movie fantasy, perhaps.

The omphalos hypothesis sounds to me like an effort to get around science. It's saying that religion cannot contend with science, so it's going to try to "get around" it, but it doesn't even accomplish that. Moreover, though, I think it's a sly attempt at one of those high school philosophy suggestions that goes that you can't really know anything. I reject that in whole, of course.

[afleitch]

What it does is reconcile the story of Genesis with the scientific evidence out there. It opens up a pathway whereas one can embrace both.

Why do creation myths need to be reconciled with scientific evidence if they are contrary to the scientific evidence? Furthermore, why should it be just one creation myth that get's reconciled. You haven't evidently dis-proven any other creation myth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The omphalos hypothesis sounds to me like an effort to get around science. It's saying that religion cannot contend with science, so it's going to try to "get around" it, but it doesn't even accomplish that. Moreover, though, I think it's a sly attempt at one of those high school philosophy suggestions that goes that you can't really know anything. I reject that in whole, of course.

That's why it wasn't well received originally by theologians of the day.  They largely considered it a slur against God, and likely to bring religion into disrepute. It got a revival in the 20th century because those who insist the Bible be both literal and infallible were needing something like it to preserve them in the face of mounting scientific evidence that could not otherwise be reconciled with modern geology and biology.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

An interesting idea, but doesn't it call the entire scientific enterprise into question?  If we can't trust the evidence in front of us?  Science was developed assuming a belief in a reliable God and a reliable universe - this is calling both into question.
The idea that a functional system requires it to measure as old could make sense, but I don't see how a bunch of fossils fits into this.  In fact I think the importance of a functional system may give a reason as to why the creation of the world needed to take as long as the scientific data suggests it did. 

[DemPGH]

An interesting idea, but doesn't it call the entire scientific enterprise into question?  If we can't trust the evidence in front of us?    

Well that's the problem: you need to contrive something like this in order to call science into question.

Science was developed assuming a belief in a reliable God and a reliable universe - this is calling both into question.

Not so. Science 1) has always operated apart from and often in spite of religion, and 2) science was invented plainly to explain what was observed in the natural world. Aristarchus of Samos first figured out, for ex., the heliocentric solar system, but Christians later rejected that because Ptolemy and Aristotle made them feel better about themselves. And they had the armies.

Now there is the God of the Gaps concept, which warrants its own thread - I may get around to that at some point.

The idea that a functional system requires it to measure as old could make sense, but I don't see how a bunch of fossils fits into this.  In fact I think the importance of a functional system may give a reason as to why the creation of the world needed to take as long as the scientific data suggests it did.  

Fossils and sediment layers give us a pretty firm timeline, and a previous poster is correct that paleontology and geology clearly show that a six-day or even short-term (several thousand years) Creation event is not possible. But see, Creationists will come back and say, "All things are possible through God" and "A thousand years and day" or something like that "are the same to God." But that's just kind of, well, not very sensible.

The functional system is governed by physical, chemical, and biological laws that are likely inevitable. Life may very well also be inevitable because the ingredients for it are literally everywhere. Life here is not an accident nor is it an act of Creation, in other words. Put the ingredients in the "Goldilocks zone" (not too hot, not too cold), which is where Earth is, and voila, you have life.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Didn't jmfcst sort of use this reasoning?

[John Dibble]

Didn't jmfcst sort of use this reasoning?

Yes and no. He just rejected any evidence that outright contradicted the Bible's account of creation and was openly skeptical of evolution, but he wasn't a young Earth creationist either and accepted that the creation account could have taken longer than a literal six days given that the Bible says a day is a thousand years to God or something along those lines. He did a lot of mental gymnastics, and it's hard to accurately state what his position actually was on the matter - I'm not sure it was even coherent to him.

[Beet]

I just realized the Star Wars analogy implies that when God created the world, he also created time itself. The world can be millions of years old, but it only became millions of years old 6,000 years ago. This implies God's ability to both travel through time and change time, but I don't see how it's beyond his omnipotence.

[afleitch]

I just realized the Star Wars analogy implies that when God created the world, he also created time itself. The world can be millions of years old, but it only became millions of years old 6,000 years ago. This implies God's ability to both travel through time and change time, but I don't see how it's beyond his omnipotence.

I'm struggling to understand if you actually believe this or are simply posing it as a hypothetical. Taking all of science and subverting it to fit into a creation myth, because science contradicts the myth doesn't really cut it. Even if you do that, you've not dealt with the fact that someone else might have done the same thing for their creation myth which is contrary to yours (and alaso contrary to the scientific method). Besides Genesis itself contains contradictions on creation, so why that really requires some gymnastics with reality to sort out

[Beet]

I just realized the Star Wars analogy implies that when God created the world, he also created time itself. The world can be millions of years old, but it only became millions of years old 6,000 years ago. This implies God's ability to both travel through time and change time, but I don't see how it's beyond his omnipotence.

I'm struggling to understand if you actually believe this or are simply posing it as a hypothetical. Taking all of science and subverting it to fit into a creation myth, because science contradicts the myth doesn't really cut it. Even if you do that, you've not dealt with the fact that someone else might have done the same thing for their creation myth which is contrary to yours (and alaso contrary to the scientific method). Besides Genesis itself contains contradictions on creation, so why that really requires some gymnastics with reality to sort out

I believe that a 747 flies, but I don't know how, nor will I ever.

Similarly, I believe in both Jesus as the Savior and Son of God, and in modern science, and this is just some speculations on how that might work. It's not supposed to convince nonbelievers to believe. It's just supposed to think through how my beliefs could hypothetically be consistent.

[To The Cliffs!]

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.

many problems with this:
1) the bible doesn't state creation was created with an engrained physical "back-story"...so the mere idea of holding a religious belief in a physical back-story is non-scriptural and is made up out of wholeclothe.
2) this back-story "solution" is needed to solve contradictions caused by overly strict literalism that refuses to accept the other definitions used throughout the bible for the word "day".
3) using a 24 hour period as a definition of the word "day" in Genesis ch 1 is actually contrary to the context of the Genesis account of creation:  a) the sun and moon were not created on the first day, thus the Sun can NOT be assumed to define the length of the word "day"; and b) the length of 7th day of which God rested is eternal (it had no evening in the Genesis creation account, which is why Hebrews ch 4 interprets it as an eternal rest)...eternity is a tad longer than 24 hours.

[afleitch]

I just realized the Star Wars analogy implies that when God created the world, he also created time itself. The world can be millions of years old, but it only became millions of years old 6,000 years ago. This implies God's ability to both travel through time and change time, but I don't see how it's beyond his omnipotence.

I'm struggling to understand if you actually believe this or are simply posing it as a hypothetical. Taking all of science and subverting it to fit into a creation myth, because science contradicts the myth doesn't really cut it. Even if you do that, you've not dealt with the fact that someone else might have done the same thing for their creation myth which is contrary to yours (and alaso contrary to the scientific method). Besides Genesis itself contains contradictions on creation, so why that really requires some gymnastics with reality to sort out

I believe that a 747 flies, but I don't know how, nor will I ever.

Similarly, I believe in both Jesus as the Savior and Son of God, and in modern science, and this is just some speculations on how that might work. It's not supposed to convince nonbelievers to believe. It's just supposed to think through how my beliefs could hypothetically be consistent.

I don't really remember you being religious, so that's curious. In either event, why should they be consistent? Why does Genesis have to be 'truth' when like most other creation myth's it's likely to be a metaphor.

[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.

many problems with this:
1) the bible doesn't state creation was created with an engrained physical "back-story"...so the mere idea of holding a religious belief in a physical back-story is non-scriptural and is made up out of wholeclothe.

Not at all. There are hundreds of years of scientific evidence, radiocarbon dating, etc. for the back-story. It's as far from being made-up as any interpretation of Biblical creation can be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I haven't seen what other definitions are used throughout the Bible for the word "day." Why would the word 'day' even be used if it is supposed to signify something else, like a "period"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point, God created the sun and moon on the fourth day. So prior to then, it is not clear the length of day and night. But still, it would seem the most straightforward reading is that beginning on the fourth day, day and night can be defined as we define them today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what scriptural evidence there is for it being a metaphor.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what scriptural evidence there is for it being a metaphor.

The fact Genesis contains conflicting accounts of creation might be a start! I never thought you'd be a literalist.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what scriptural evidence there is for it being a metaphor.

The fact Genesis contains conflicting accounts of creation might be a start! I never thought you'd be a literalist.

A literal reading is always the simplest, so that is the place to start. The problem with metaphors is that you are constructing an alternative story and you need a lot of evidence as to what your alternative story is, and why every detail of it makes sense. With that being said, I am certainly open to alternative explanations, provided that they make sense.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what scriptural evidence there is for it being a metaphor.

The fact Genesis contains conflicting accounts of creation might be a start! I never thought you'd be a literalist.

A literal reading is always the simplest, so that is the place to start. The problem with metaphors is that you are constructing an alternative story and you need a lot of evidence as to what your alternative story is, and why every detail of it makes sense. With that being said, I am certainly open to alternative explanations, provided that they make sense.

And that is exactly what you are doing with the scientific method; you are constructing an alternate story that does three things; first it satisfies only you (and one must always be suspicious of trying to reconcile your own worldview with reality) two, it's contrary to the scientific method itself (you'd have to throw out over a hundred years of physics to have god play around with time) and thirdly it doesn't disprove any other creation myth because they can apply your method to say that their god and their creation myth is the 'backstory to the backstory.'

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on what scriptural evidence there is for it being a metaphor.

The fact Genesis contains conflicting accounts of creation might be a start! I never thought you'd be a literalist.

A literal reading is always the simplest, so that is the place to start. The problem with metaphors is that you are constructing an alternative story and you need a lot of evidence as to what your alternative story is, and why every detail of it makes sense. With that being said, I am certainly open to alternative explanations, provided that they make sense.

And that is exactly what you are doing with the scientific method; you are constructing an alternate story that does three things; first it satisfies only you (and one must always be suspicious of trying to reconcile your own worldview with reality) two, it's contrary to the scientific method itself (you'd have to throw out over a hundred years of physics to have god play around with time) and thirdly it doesn't disprove any other creation myth because they can apply your method to say that their god and their creation myth is the 'backstory to the backstory.'

Well first of all, as Nathan pointed out in his first post, this idea was first written down in the 1850s, almost concurrently with the genesis of the reason why it would be necessary to have it, so clearly it doesn't only satisfy me. Others have thought of it and advocated for it as well.

Secondly, what is more natural than reconciling ones own worldview with one's belief about reality? The alternative is to knowingly believe a contradiction. Not a single person, nor yourself, has admitted to such a thing.

Thirdly, how does physics speak to God? I thought physics was like other sciences in that it does not make statements about the unknowable.

Fourthly, I've already said many times in this thread that the point here isn't to disprove any other possible creation story, but simply to establish the possibility of Genesis's, within the parameters of reconciling it with scientific evidence. The assumption here is that the book of Genesis is taken as a valid piece of evidence.

---

Edit:
With respect to the difference between my approach and metaphorical readings of Genesis, the difference is: The omphalos allows for the text to be read in the most straightforward manner and interprets the scientific evidence in a way that is not straightforward. Metaphorical approaches reverse the order- they interpret the text in a non-straightforward way and in doing so might allow interpretation of the scientific evidence in the most straightforward way.
Why do I privilege the text over the scientific evidence? Because the former is explicit and the latter is based on inference. Hence, the former is a form of evidence which makes stronger claims.

[afleitch]

So essentially you accept that god lies? By placing fossils in the rocks and having every observable thing being wrong, then he's guilty of a deliberate deception? If you do, then when it comes to my understanding of the Christian God, you're on my team

[Beet]

So essentially you accept that god lies? By placing fossils in the rocks and having every observable thing being wrong, then he's guilty of a deliberate deception? If you do, then when it comes to my understanding of the Christian God, you're on my team

No observable thing is wrong. That's the entire point, as I've explained many times.

[afleitch]

So essentially you accept that god lies? By placing fossils in the rocks and having every observable thing being wrong, then he's guilty of a deliberate deception? If you do, then when it comes to my understanding of the Christian God, you're on my team

No observable thing is wrong. That's the entire point, as I've explained many times.

But it is. If you plant a fake archaeological artifact on a site today to create a 'backstory' to suit your narrative despite people perceiving it to be real, it can never truly be real because it is a lie. Leaving evidence across the universe to suggest the universe is billions of years old when that is not the case is a lie.

Which leads me to another point. I find it strange to think that an entire universe with trillions of suns and billions of planets many numbers of which probably contain life, perhaps even intelligent life has all been carefully arranged just for a Semetic tribe. In the same way I guess I find it amazing that it was all created (but apparently in a different way) for the Greeks, or the Aztecs, or the Hindi. Sounds very...human.

[Beet]

It's not a fake archaeological artifact, it's a real one.

Let me explain this another way, since the two of us aren't the only ones reading this thread.

Imagine you see, behind a glass wall, what appears to be a ball with the words "this object is a square" written on it. You could conclude several things.

You could conclude that whoever wrote "this object is a square" was lying, since you clearly see it as a ball.

You could conclude that "this object is a square" does not really mean "this object is a square" but is just a roundabout and oblique way of saying "this object is a ball"

You could conclude that despite the object appearing as a ball, it actually is a square and the writing is correct.

You could conclude that your eyes are lying to you about what you see, and your sight is not to be trusted. But this would mean that both the shape of the object and the writing would be equally unreliable, since you use your eyes to see both.

Now let us assume that whoever wrote "this object is a square" is not a liar, and you have no reason to think "square" means "ball". The most logical conclusion is that even though the object appears as a ball to you, it really is a square. It is not that what you see is fake. Perhaps there is a film that distorts the light, or that a part of the object is composed of entirely transparent material.

The person who set up this scenario is not a liar or deceiver in any sense. They would be a deceiver if they had put a ball there and written "this object is a square" on it. They would have literally written a lie. They would be a liar if they had put an object that looked like a ball but was really a square.

But by creating the appearance of a contradiction, they have not deceived in any way. They have only created a puzzle, a situation in which you use your rational mind. If you assume that both pieces of evidence they have placed before you have equal validity, then the one which makes the stronger claim assumes truth. And the explicit claim is a stronger claim because it is more direct.

In your analogy, it would be like placing a fake archaeological artifact on a site today, but also placing a leaving a note saying "this artifact is fake. I placed this here". If the archaeologist treats his or her assumptions about the artifact as truth despite seeing the note, it's the archaeologist's fault for reaching a false inference, not the note-leaver's fault.