7 ms·

My brother-in-law is a fundamentalist Christian. My sister homeschooled all 8 kids from kindergarten through 12th grade. His view is that since God made Adam

by skh 8y ago

My brother-in-law is a fundamentalist Christian. My sister homeschooled all 8 kids from kindergarten through 12th grade. His view is that since God made Adam as a full grown man then it's possible that God created the world “with age” in his parlance. The point is that people who want something to be true will engage in the nececcsry mental gymnastics to justify their belief. It’s not unique to firinge ideas but it is easier to spot in people with fringe ideas. EDIT: The fringe idea I referenced above is the notion that God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before. My comment is in no way diminishing religion.

ars 8y ago
It's hardly a fringe idea. It's actually pretty mainstream. It even has a dismissive name: Last Tuesdayism. You have to be careful to keep the idea separate from Young Earth Creationism! Young Earth Creationism directly contradicts observation. In contrast believing the universe was created already old does not conflict with science (you just can't prove it one way or another).
- diego_moita 8y ago
  So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect? Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? There's a large number of people who believe this. Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence. Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities. I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind. > Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth. I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith. Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind. ------------ It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it. Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.
    - diego_moita 8y ago
      I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion. American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me. I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo. Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple) And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct". So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.
      - nyolfen 8y ago
        pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.
        diego_moita 8y ago
        Sorry, what is your point?
        nyolfen 8y ago
        "Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere." my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better
  - xupybd 8y ago
    That's interesting that you'd ask if it's worth intellectual respect, I don't think that is what anyone is looking for here. Most people don't believe in God because they think they've figured something out or that their intellectual pursuits have led to that conclusion. A belief in God requires belief that there are super natural forces at work, that escape scientific detection. Yes this goes against materialism and other axioms you may hold dear. But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. I totally agree without this sort of personal experience there is no compelling reason to agree. The point is there are people like my self that are totally behind science as the best way to understand our physical reality but have been convinced there exists a God that cannot proven or described. I don't know how the pieces fit but I'm not trying to make them fit. Believing in God doesn't explain the universe for me it just adds another complex unknown.
    - diego_moita 8y ago
      I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him. But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way. Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - gruez 8y ago
      >But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. translation: because that's what they were told by their parents when they were young
      - xupybd 8y ago
        In most cases, perhaps. I'm a bit of an outlier, my parents do not share my beliefs and did not raise me with any belief in God. A data point of one is not enough to draw any conclusions but it is a data point.
  - YaxelPerez 8y ago
    Usually the devil is the one that plants fossils to "lead people astray"
  - 8note 8y ago
    it's much more reasonable than alternative God based options that match aramaic scripture, imo
    - diego_moita 8y ago
      Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?
  - ars 8y ago
    For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not. So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do. > and false carbon 14 decay There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory. Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      > Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized. The fundamental question is not "did God create man". Any religious person would believe that God created Man. Period. The fundamental question is HOW did God create us. Current science suggests that we humans evolved from a species (the Homo Erectus). An animal that very much looked like us, but is slightly different. We have evidence of Homo Erectus societies, tool use, fire use, and other human-like behavior. -------- The two schools of thought are NOT Atheism vs Christianity. But between Creationism and plain-ol' Science. God can exist with science. It is far more likely that God created us, and molded us through the Homo Erectus stage some 3-million years ago. Why would God falsely create Homo Erectus bones (anti-benevolence), when it is far more likely (ie: theologically consistent with the belief in a Benevolent God) for God to want us to believe and grow in biological science and understanding of our own bodies? Homo Erectus existed. And modern Humans were born from them. Period. That doesn't change my opinion on God (or really, anyone's opnion)
  - esaym 8y ago
    There are lots of videos on youtube about creationism. I like watching them. I find the reasoning actually pretty good. Too lazy to dig up good videos right now. But don't knock it till you try it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. Look up zircon crystals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating
- skh 8y ago
  It’s fringe in the sense that a large majority of the world's professing Christians don’t subscribe to it. It also seems to me to be a fairly new take on the belief that the Earth is young. Back when I was a fundamentalist Christian we just denied altogether that the Earth even appears to be old. I guess the evidence is so overwhelming that the Earth is old that this idea is starting to take hold. This reinforces my statement about people looking to rationalize beliefs. I think we all do this. No one can possibly prove all of the statements they believe to be true. Hence a lot of times one engages in a knee jerk reaction to contradictory evidence to seek out whatever plausible explanation one can think of. People often times argue about what could be true instead of seeking out what is true.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    ~40% of americans don't think evolution is real.
    - skh 8y ago
      I don’t understand your point here. I did mention in my comment that I was talking about the world's professing Christians. Do you have evidence that amongst the world's professing Christians the idea that the Earth is young but God created it to look old is mainstream? As far as I know this is a fringe idea but I haven’t been in tune with Christian thought for 15 years so things may have changed.
      - nyolfen 8y ago
        i actually misremembered that statistics -- it was that ~40% of americans explicitly believe in young earth creationism. young earth creationism is definitely a mainstream view nationally in the US. even if the level is half that globally among protestants it would qualify as mainstream. protestant denominations (particularly american fundamentalist ones) are also growing at a much faster rate across the world than catholicism. "A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38% of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years." and according to this[1], globally 50% of protestant leaders are biblical literalists (generally associated with young earth beliefs) [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/ http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangeli...
- charcoal23 8y ago
  Would agree with you that it's semi-mainstream. I grew up evangelical, and I heard that argument many times. Though it was never accepted doctrine nor preached. At least at my baptist church. But there is one potentially fun part of this silly theology. While discussing this with a never-Christian friend of mine, we both had the epiphany there's an overlap between this doctrine and the "universe is a simulation" idea. Which really amused me. Maybe, at least with believers of that sort, gnosticism will make a well-deserved comeback.
rgrieselhuber 8y ago
The simulation theory is the modern equivalent of this.
- cam_l 8y ago
  I find it exceedingly odd that people find it easy to believe that matter can be created from nothing, but find it so difficult to believe that meaning can be created from nothing. The simulation theorists are interesting because they try to invest in a quasi-logical argument, but it is built on the same shaky foundations as religion. Edit: it is built on this same foundation, of not believing in the possibility of creation of meaning from nothing. Which is the same foundation that religion is built on (note, I say religion, not belief in God). And I say this as someone who was brought up in a baptist church believing in 'Christian Science' with all the bullshit magazines and everything. Took me years to undo that mess in my thinking. So though I fully understand the resistance to undo the belief, I still find it exceedingly odd.
skissane 8y ago
> God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before. Not a new idea – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
- tango24 8y ago
  And it’s not much of a stretch. If we assume that an intelligent being can create both TIME and a rapidly expanding UNIVERSE, both of which we don’t fully understand, is it really that “fringe” for some to believe that our perception of “time” doesn't necessarily have to start at zero?
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Assuming that makes everything impossible to prove, therefore unscientific. You can assume whatever you want. It is whether you're willing to question and falsify the belief that is important. Time is a nice label we apply to certain casual sequences. Negative tone is used when describing symmetries in quantum physics or when comparing viewpoints on relativity.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    It's not stating that our perception of time doesn't start at 0. It's stating that god created the universe specifically to look like something it wasn't.
    - jrs95 8y ago
      Also not a stretch if you already believe he has involvement in human affairs and also goes out of his way to leave no hard evidence of his existence
      - dwaltrip 8y ago
        Seems like a wee bit of a jump to suggest purposeful, direct deception regarding the large-scale history of the cosmos and all of life on Earth.
Isinlor 8y ago
Similar arguments are made in scientific discourse. If you assume that the universe happened by chance, and the observable universe is just a part of a bigger multiverse, then you can ask yourself what is more likely: 1. The whole, enormous universe happening out of nothing, including you 2. Your small brain (no offense, we compare with the universe :P) happening out of nothing in a mental state that contains all memories of a world existing as you experience it now Option 2. seems to be more likely, and at the same time most people would call it absurd. This tough experiment is called Boltzmann brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain So, do you think you are a Boltzmann brain? It seems like answer to this type of problem depends fully on your a prior's. It's a big problem in cosmology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  The Boltzmann brain is a thought experiment. It's not any kind of serious scientific proposal.

by skh 8y ago

ars 8y ago

It's hardly a fringe idea. It's actually pretty mainstream. It even has a dismissive name: Last Tuesdayism. You have to be careful to keep the idea separate from Young Earth Creationism! Young Earth Creationism directly contradicts observation. In contrast believing the universe was created already old does not conflict with science (you just can't prove it one way or another).

diego_moita 8y ago
So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect? Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? There's a large number of people who believe this. Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence. Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities. I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind. > Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists? Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth. I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith. Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind. ------------ It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it. Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.
  - diego_moita 8y ago
    I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion. American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me. I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo. Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple) And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct". So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.
      - diego_moita 8y ago
        Sorry, what is your point?
        nyolfen 8y ago
        "Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere." my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better
- xupybd 8y ago
  That's interesting that you'd ask if it's worth intellectual respect, I don't think that is what anyone is looking for here. Most people don't believe in God because they think they've figured something out or that their intellectual pursuits have led to that conclusion. A belief in God requires belief that there are super natural forces at work, that escape scientific detection. Yes this goes against materialism and other axioms you may hold dear. But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. I totally agree without this sort of personal experience there is no compelling reason to agree. The point is there are people like my self that are totally behind science as the best way to understand our physical reality but have been convinced there exists a God that cannot proven or described. I don't know how the pieces fit but I'm not trying to make them fit. Believing in God doesn't explain the universe for me it just adds another complex unknown.
  - diego_moita 8y ago
    I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him. But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way. Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - gruez 8y ago
    >But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. translation: because that's what they were told by their parents when they were young
    - xupybd 8y ago
      In most cases, perhaps. I'm a bit of an outlier, my parents do not share my beliefs and did not raise me with any belief in God. A data point of one is not enough to draw any conclusions but it is a data point.
- YaxelPerez 8y ago
  Usually the devil is the one that plants fossils to "lead people astray"
- 8note 8y ago
  it's much more reasonable than alternative God based options that match aramaic scripture, imo
  - diego_moita 8y ago
    Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?
- ars 8y ago
  For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not. So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do. > and false carbon 14 decay There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory. Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized. The fundamental question is not "did God create man". Any religious person would believe that God created Man. Period. The fundamental question is HOW did God create us. Current science suggests that we humans evolved from a species (the Homo Erectus). An animal that very much looked like us, but is slightly different. We have evidence of Homo Erectus societies, tool use, fire use, and other human-like behavior. -------- The two schools of thought are NOT Atheism vs Christianity. But between Creationism and plain-ol' Science. God can exist with science. It is far more likely that God created us, and molded us through the Homo Erectus stage some 3-million years ago. Why would God falsely create Homo Erectus bones (anti-benevolence), when it is far more likely (ie: theologically consistent with the belief in a Benevolent God) for God to want us to believe and grow in biological science and understanding of our own bodies? Homo Erectus existed. And modern Humans were born from them. Period. That doesn't change my opinion on God (or really, anyone's opnion)
- esaym 8y ago
  There are lots of videos on youtube about creationism. I like watching them. I find the reasoning actually pretty good. Too lazy to dig up good videos right now. But don't knock it till you try it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. Look up zircon crystals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating
skh 8y ago
It’s fringe in the sense that a large majority of the world's professing Christians don’t subscribe to it. It also seems to me to be a fairly new take on the belief that the Earth is young. Back when I was a fundamentalist Christian we just denied altogether that the Earth even appears to be old. I guess the evidence is so overwhelming that the Earth is old that this idea is starting to take hold. This reinforces my statement about people looking to rationalize beliefs. I think we all do this. No one can possibly prove all of the statements they believe to be true. Hence a lot of times one engages in a knee jerk reaction to contradictory evidence to seek out whatever plausible explanation one can think of. People often times argue about what could be true instead of seeking out what is true.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  ~40% of americans don't think evolution is real.
  - skh 8y ago
    I don’t understand your point here. I did mention in my comment that I was talking about the world's professing Christians. Do you have evidence that amongst the world's professing Christians the idea that the Earth is young but God created it to look old is mainstream? As far as I know this is a fringe idea but I haven’t been in tune with Christian thought for 15 years so things may have changed.
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      i actually misremembered that statistics -- it was that ~40% of americans explicitly believe in young earth creationism. young earth creationism is definitely a mainstream view nationally in the US. even if the level is half that globally among protestants it would qualify as mainstream. protestant denominations (particularly american fundamentalist ones) are also growing at a much faster rate across the world than catholicism. "A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38% of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years." and according to this[1], globally 50% of protestant leaders are biblical literalists (generally associated with young earth beliefs) [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/ http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangeli...
charcoal23 8y ago
Would agree with you that it's semi-mainstream. I grew up evangelical, and I heard that argument many times. Though it was never accepted doctrine nor preached. At least at my baptist church. But there is one potentially fun part of this silly theology. While discussing this with a never-Christian friend of mine, we both had the epiphany there's an overlap between this doctrine and the "universe is a simulation" idea. Which really amused me. Maybe, at least with believers of that sort, gnosticism will make a well-deserved comeback.

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

The simulation theory is the modern equivalent of this.

cam_l 8y ago
I find it exceedingly odd that people find it easy to believe that matter can be created from nothing, but find it so difficult to believe that meaning can be created from nothing. The simulation theorists are interesting because they try to invest in a quasi-logical argument, but it is built on the same shaky foundations as religion. Edit: it is built on this same foundation, of not believing in the possibility of creation of meaning from nothing. Which is the same foundation that religion is built on (note, I say religion, not belief in God). And I say this as someone who was brought up in a baptist church believing in 'Christian Science' with all the bullshit magazines and everything. Took me years to undo that mess in my thinking. So though I fully understand the resistance to undo the belief, I still find it exceedingly odd.

skissane 8y ago

> God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before. Not a new idea – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

tango24 8y ago
And it’s not much of a stretch. If we assume that an intelligent being can create both TIME and a rapidly expanding UNIVERSE, both of which we don’t fully understand, is it really that “fringe” for some to believe that our perception of “time” doesn't necessarily have to start at zero?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Assuming that makes everything impossible to prove, therefore unscientific. You can assume whatever you want. It is whether you're willing to question and falsify the belief that is important. Time is a nice label we apply to certain casual sequences. Negative tone is used when describing symmetries in quantum physics or when comparing viewpoints on relativity.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  It's not stating that our perception of time doesn't start at 0. It's stating that god created the universe specifically to look like something it wasn't.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Also not a stretch if you already believe he has involvement in human affairs and also goes out of his way to leave no hard evidence of his existence
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      Seems like a wee bit of a jump to suggest purposeful, direct deception regarding the large-scale history of the cosmos and all of life on Earth.

Isinlor 8y ago

Similar arguments are made in scientific discourse. If you assume that the universe happened by chance, and the observable universe is just a part of a bigger multiverse, then you can ask yourself what is more likely: 1. The whole, enormous universe happening out of nothing, including you 2. Your small brain (no offense, we compare with the universe :P) happening out of nothing in a mental state that contains all memories of a world existing as you experience it now Option 2. seems to be more likely, and at the same time most people would call it absurd. This tough experiment is called Boltzmann brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain So, do you think you are a Boltzmann brain? It seems like answer to this type of problem depends fully on your a prior's. It's a big problem in cosmology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

dwaltrip 8y ago
The Boltzmann brain is a thought experiment. It's not any kind of serious scientific proposal.