Talk:Omphalos hypothesis

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Judgemental

Let's not be so judgmental. Omphalos could be a milestone in relations between science and religion. Claiming it isn't falsifiable is a red herring, as it is proposed as a reconciliation.-- 00:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it unfalsifiable is not a red herring, it is a factual statement. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But falsifiability is reserved for science, not religion. --. 01:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That point is beside the facts, and irrelevant. We can't say that the sky on Mars isn't red, because the sky on Earth is blue, and therefore "The Sky is blue", so it can't be red. That's sophistry. It is a logical truth that the Omphalos hypothesis is unfalsifiable, regardless of if it's "religion" or not. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be true, but it's similar to saying that all colors are degradations of light and then explaining all of the physics behind it ...in an art class--. 01:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But this is not a theology discussion exclusively so we can discuss the scientific implications of the hypothesis, e.g, that it would be a unfalsifiable hypothesis. - π 01:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and deconstructing light as photons and explaining the physics behind it is exactly what we do here on RationalWiki. RationalWiki is not an art class, we're physicists looking at art classes, and talking about them rationally/scientifically. As such, the fact that a hypothesis is unfalsifiable is absolutely on-mission and relevant to the purpose of this website. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{ec}I'm not necessarily saying we can't say it isn't falsifiable, I'm saying we shouldn't treat something that isn't intended as a scientific theory as if it were. It isn't fair to hold it up to that standard.--. 01:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Next shall we grant homeopathy a free ride because it isn't supposed to be science or modern medicine? Your argument fails because this site is based around Rationalism. All articles here are treated from a Rationalist perspective. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that much different than brain-in-a-vat/The Matrix type arguments. Logically it should be rejected, though there's no way to prove that it's false. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ecx2Not necessarily. Omphalos is a brilliant reconciliation of science and religion. It could be included on that grounds alone. I think I'm going to make a "In terms of Science" section to clear up the question of falsifiability. The section would state that it is not falsifiable, but also go on to say that falsifiability is not necessarily relevant to it.--. 01:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's some food for though: Why would the two even need to be reconciled? If religion can no longer provide meaningful answers to questions about the universe, or if it continues to provide incorrect answers, why should it even be kept around? It's like trying to "reconcile" a horse-drawn carriage with a Ferrari- there's no reason to keep the carriage aside from sentimentality. Stick that shit in a museum. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Worse, I'd say. You can make up all kinds of unfalsifiable metaphysical ideas, like the brain-in-a-vat or omphalos hypothesis or woo-ey "outside space and time" stuff, many of which would directly contradict each other. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Next you can add such a section to every metaphysical article on the wiki. And it's not compatible with science... it's just a way of getting your cake (creationism) and eating it, too. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This hypothesis is somewhat similar to the simulated reality hypothesis, or solipsism. All are unfalsifiable hypotheses about the universe (as we perceive it) being an illusion. They don't help science, since science only studies the observable universe. However, while solipsism & simulated reality are largely just philosophical thought experiments, the omphalos hypothesis is something which some people literally believe in. It's not a "reconciliation" of science & religion in any positive way; it's a workaround for creationist apologetics so that YEC can have its cake & eat it too: acknowledge that scientific evidence appears to contradict the Bible, while still clinging on to a literal interpretation of the creation myth. A milestone in denial, perhaps. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think most of these examples y'all are bringing up are MEANT to be unfalsifiable. I take it you all failed your philosophy classes?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* yes... we already knew that. To quote RvB's Sarge, "Can you put that in a memo, and entitle it SHIT I ALREADY KNOW'?" The point is that none of them provide predictive capabilities, and thus are meaningless and outside of science... at that point, they become philosophical ideas, and not science. So, Omphalos cannot be a bridge between religion and science... as it postulates that at some point science did not apply. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{ec...}allow me to elaborate: there is no point to discourse between science and religion, science and post-modernism, etc. They operate within different paradigms. The semantic difference would be that (ideally) religion or philosophy aren't applied to medicine and engineering. So it's okay if either is flailingly wrong, assuming they stay within their purposed boundaries.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Omphalos isn't a bridge you can walk across, it's more of an olive branch. Forgive me for making crap metaphors. Omphalos is basically "We can all get along!" Although I must say, you're making it rather difficult.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I see it at all. Science works on the understanding of observable causality; a rational universe. Omphalos works on the understanding that Goddidit and nature got framed for it. I don't see anything legitimate sciences would gain by giving credence to such an idea. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is: "why would science bother?" Omphalos isn't borking anything. Give the creationists a break for once.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's undermining science & denying its findings. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Omphalos isn't. This is not your crack pot theories trying to explain the number of craters on the moon or the presence of fossils. --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Actually it is. It is just saying that they were created magically 6000 years ago, instead of they were created by meteor impacts over billions of years. - π 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

but Omphalos implies the billions of years was created 6000 years ago. God created Earth with its past included. That means when science studies the past, they are not wrong, merely studying god's creation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Than the hypothesis is useless and no better than Last Thursdayism. - π 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It denies the reality of our robot overlords, who are the ones actually simulating reality. Therefore, I find it offensive. Kill the infidels. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better

thank you, pi. although I'm not sure of the reference to solipsism.--. 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think solipsism is the right word, but I can't think of it right now. - π 02:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

excuse me

HOW IS IT A HYPOTHESIS if it fucking doesn't have any evidence. Are you saying that I can make an hypothesis that elves are real, and that 1/3 of the time they have a purple knee? That's crazy. Science is about looking at evidence -> drawing conclusions, not drawing conclusions -> looking for evidence. --Rskle (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis is what anti-theists decided to append. Omphalos does not pretend to be a scientific theory, and yet is still held up to such standards by people with seemingly nothing better to do than hate all day. Think about it: this idea legitimizes all scientific research in the eyes of the most dogmatic creationists. Nothing contradicts their theology. What's so bad about getting along?--. 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a hypothesis in the scientific sense. Nevertheless that is the name it has been given and which is used to refer to it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand...

1) People supporting it won't want it taught as science. I don't get this. The "hypothesis" is a specific form of Goddidit, but every single creationist effectively believes in Goddidit and that doesn't stop them wanting to throw out science. Sure, it's not a scientifically testable hypothesis, but that's never stopped them.

2) When Christians have trouble explaining anything a regular standby is along the lines of, 'God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform' - I don't understand what this means, not that I like such things moved into footnotes, it gives the false impression that we've cited something but we haven't.

3) Adams' navel is a bit beside the point, it should be moved into a separate section on the development of it rather than in the lead paragraph.

ADK^{...I'll toast your Pontiac!} 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform is the start of a well known British hymn and that shows the way Christians regularly resort to 'divine mystery' when they can't find a better answer. God is Lord (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference to that hymn since readers outside the UK seem not to understand it. God is Lord (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what TG meant was that researching evolution and geology and all that jazz is perfectly fine, since it's observations based on the world that god created. --User:Brxbrx/sig 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Adam's navel is completely the point, since that's the basis for the name and the theory. Pay attention--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also "should be moved into a separate section on the development of it rather than in the lead paragraph", pay attention. I know you're retarded by terminal stupidity, but reading will help. ADK^{...I'll drink your oxygen!} 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

ArchieGoodwin (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The summary seems like a perfectly good place to put it, since the origin of the name is an excellent summary of the theory itself.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair

I am going to be as fair as possible to people who believe this theory, at least they dont treat their idea of god like he is an idiot. One of my big issues with religious people is they often talk about how their god is "all powerful, and all knowing, and blah" but then when it comes to their books and stuff, they treat god like he is a mentally handicapped infant. . . so you could call this progress, in the sense that they are at least being consistent with their own beliefs. 71.238.243.98 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But it does treat the God figure as deceptive, and that doesn't mesh well with the assessment of "good", which is a necessary part of the concept. ^theist 12:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, so was ob-wan kenobi (and most other Jedi throughout the expanded universe for that matter) Lying old drunk. 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mere human standards don't apply. God is not considered "bad" when He kills and maims people, or destroys their property or the world of nature. Outright lying, let alone just giving misleading impressions, would hardly be more difficult to excuse.

We might suggest that it is logically impossible to create a functioning complex world of life without its having the appearance of having had a history. How does one create a tribe of social mammals without their having, from the beginning, knowledge about their families, fellow tribe members, and environment, and memories? How else could a social mammal survive? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

To quote 'If I find myself born or drafted into a universe wherein the laws of nature do not obey consistent principles, I will depart for an alternate universe created by a more reasonable author.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Logical consequence

God provides sufficient evidence for [relevant Deity pronoun] not existing - and therefore loses even more supporters (along with those sent to hell for failing to live up to his specifications).

Even if God sets up 'self-contained terrarium universe' (so [pronoun] can enjoy seeing what happens) there will need to be occasional intervention/maintenance. Anna Livia (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a variant of deism - and would be compatible with the multiverse. Anna Livia (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Joke?

Could there be a 'navel gazing' sentence included. Anna Livia (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)