Talk:Last Thursdayism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 21 February 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Sporked

I sporked some material from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article that had been deleted. Proxima Centauri 08:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Cut from article

I have cut the folowing from the article to this talk page:

• Theists hold that God can be known from looking at the world per Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Looking at the world has led the scientific community to understand the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and to insist it is only six thousand years requires a God with a deceptive character, or a false biography, or both.

Given that the article is about the (somewhat absurd) possibility of the earth having been created last Thursday, I'm not sure what this edit has to do with things.--Bob^{bing up} 12:34, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

It says in the section 'Deceitful God': "Last Thursdayism speaks to the character of a god who would perpetrate such deception of false memories and evidence. That is, such a god would be a liar. Such an attribute does not fit with a God who cannot lie, and thus the argument also fails on the grounds that a real god cannot lie, and therefore the argument cannot be true. " This is very confusing to the reader without a properly presented context. I mean: "argument fails on the grounds that a real god cannot lie"? What about the bazillion of gods of *insert mythologies* who have lied and deceived in countless stories? It does not really follow that "therefore the argument cannot be true". Again, this is very confusing to a reader who does not go into it assuming any sort of context (such as the context of the Christian god who supposedly doesn't lie, but would be able to because of omnipotence, so EVEN THAT context would fail this section). It's just a confusing section with a seemingly flawed argument and conclusion. I suggest cutting it. Nullahnung (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else seems to care, I will attempt to remedy that section myself. I won't completely cut it, because I don't fully understand the reasoning in it, but I will edit it until it's something I can understand. Nullahnung (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

recently...

Since when is 18 years ago recent?

Your view of what is "recent" may change after your epiphyseal plates ossify. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Totnesmartin, why revert my contribution that Last Thursdayism is a form of Holocaust denial? It is quite literally true -- if the universe was created Last Thursday, then everything prior to then never actually happened, but only appeared to. Since the Holocaust happened prior to Last Thursday, if Last Thursdayism is true then the Holocaust never happened. --Maratrean (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's rather... strange. Blue (pester) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be strange, but it is entirely true. If belief A entails belief B as a logical consequence, then clearly A is a form of B. Last Thursdayism clearly entails Holocaust denial, so Last Thursdayism is a form of Holocaust denial. (I may add, I am not a Last Thursdayist - I see this as yet another reason to reject Last Thursdayism.) --Maratrean (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The entire idea is unfalsifiable, though, and it's not a belief system, despite what the name suggests. Few people, if any, actually believe that everything was created last Thursday, because it's a hypothesis for hypotheses' sake. Blue (is useful) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's also a Pyramid builder denial, a Cromwell denial, a Marie Celeste denial: EVERYTHING denial. 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ECX3) From your talk page: Sorry I'm sure you meant well, but I had to undo your edit because really it was a ridiculous statement. You may as well say it's a form of evolution denial, colonialism denial, Elvis denial or omnitheism denial. The whole purpose of Last Thursdayism is to hold up a parodic mirror to unprovable statements about our origins, Rather than to edit history to suit one's prejudices. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "Last Thursdayism" as a parody. I see it as a hypothesis against reality that remains to be disproven (which is why I prefer the less ridiculous term hyperomphalism). It is a form of radical scepticism of the past. Indeed, it is also a form of evolution denial, colonialism denial and Elvis denial. (It is not necessarily incompatible with omnitheism though.) However, if we are going to point out it entails the denial of all claims about the past, why not point out some of the claims which it entails the denial of, for which there is controversy over the same denial? So, pointing out that it denies both the Holocaust and evolution is relevant. Pointing out that it denies Elvis is not really relevant, since I am not aware of any "Elvis denial" movement. --Maratrean (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm afraid you've come down with a severe case of missing the point. Blue (is useful) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WIGO'd Тy^Talk. 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"why not point out some of the claims which it entails the denial of, for which there is controversy over the same denial?"what, list random stuff that it denies? for what purpose? should we add to vegetarianism a select list of kinds of meat that vegetarians don't eat? Perhaps creationism could list various animals and plants that could have been created, or gun control could have a list of guns? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Many philosophers, unfortunately, have a limited capacity to tell the difference between what is true, in the strict sense, and what is actually relevant. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest version

I do not see what is the problem with this paragraph:

Last Thursdayism (and its relatives Last Tuesdayism and Last Wednesdayism) can be seen as hyperomphalisms, extreme forms of omphalist doctrine. As such they constitute a sceptical hypothesis, specifically in regard to the past. They entail the rejection of most generally accepted claims about the past - the denial of the Big Bang, the denial of evolution, the denial of the existence of the Roman Empire, the denial of the existence of Jesus, the denial of the existence of the Holocaust, the denial of the existence of JFK, the denial of the existence of Elvis.

It is 100% true. Although of course we cannot list every single claim about the past which hyperomphalists deny, it does provide a broad selection of some of the more notable ones. --Maratrean (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been said above, but see here. Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! A tvtropes link. That'll get him out of our hair for a while... Totnesmartin (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Creationism

... will have First Thursdayism. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated material

I put

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." (Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind, 1921, pp. 159–60) [1]

here and into Omphalos hypothesis, both articles rank high in Google and people who come here directly from Google should see the Russell quote whichever article they searched for. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical flaw

Not entirely sure it follows that inductive reasoning is meaningless given Last Thursdayism. In actual LT, there is no effective difference between a memory that is "experienced" and one that is "created" - both produce the same results and are only meaningful outside the universe (an impossibility given that the "universe" is everything there is, was, will be, could be and so on) where we can observe such a difference. Because of this, that entire edit is on somewhat shaky ground - not to say that predicting the future from just the past isn't on shaky ground anyway. It's either worded poorly or just simply doesn't follow. ADK^{...I'll soak your pastry!} 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Further implications

Either I'm not seeing something that the author of the section sees or that section makes no sense.

First off not to burst anyone's bubble but inductive reasoning is unreliable; it can be wrong and often it is wrong. We even have name for that problem, it's called unsurprisingly "Problem of Induction".

Secondly; in the last paragraph the author claims "then it is possible for us to be only halfway along our chain of memories" and then continues to write under the assumption that we are to prove that "Last Thursdayism" must be false.

Thirdly the author claims that "If we are halfway along our chain of memories, then we can prove that the future will be like the past" but provides no answer as to how would we do that. If we have access to the memories of the "future" doesn't that just mean we have moved further along the chain of memories?

And finaly being right in one case does not mean that a certain way of reasoning is right in all cases or that it is reliable.--78.3.28.93 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, that section is just some BON being a complete and utter tool. ^postate 15:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Thursdayism Argues Against Last Thursdayism

If the universe was created last Thursday, why would Last Thursdayism be a concept? If one were to falsify all signs of the universe's age in order to fool humanity, why create Last Thursdayism? While this question is pretty silly, when applied, like Last Thursdayism, to the fundie argument of God creating all the evidence of the universe's formation, specifically applying this question to the Garden of Eden (Last Thursdayism was given to the first human beings, us, in a Last Thursdayist universe, while in the Bible, God was specifically talking to the first human beings he made, who either he knew would betray him, which makes talking to them pointless, or who he assumed he could trust, which makes all the fake age pointless, which, by talking to not only them, but many, many other people, not to mention he wrote a book, makes the lies pointless, because he specifically told the truth to people). So, in a Last Thursdayist universe, Last Thursdayism should not exist. In a Christian universe where The Bible is literal but at the same time, God falsified the universe, The Bible and God's constant communication to humanity should not exist. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What? ^pathetic 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Because a universe with no Last Thursdayism would look really suspicious. --2.122.111.89 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)