Talk:Omphalos hypothesis

message: I would challenge this: "the idea that God would create appearances that are so completely deceiving to every level of detail is not consistent with most benevolent theistic theologies". If a God exists he is clearly hiding from us in these modern times. Should we be surprised that he excels at hiding? Such hiding would clearly require "completely deceiving to every level of detail". In general, benevolence can clearly include deception where ever the truth would do more harm than good. Deception can also be required in certain processes in order to achieve some good end.  PS: I now believe that this section should have been placed at the bottom? FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait... are you arguing that God can and will fool us if its for our own good?  Do you have some sort of supporting evidence for this assertion?  If a mortal man went to as much trouble as the Omphalos hypothesis implies God did, just to fool another human being into thinking one thing rather than another, we'd accuse that person of criminal fraud at worst and being a scheming manipulator at best.  Why does God get a pass on this issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A deceptive creator

message: This article is confusing.
:I second this, not because the subject matter is confusing, but because the article itself (particularly the intro) is rather poorly written. I suggest it be revised. (I bumped this heading from the bottom and merged it with the one on the top to emphasize how many people seem to agree that the article is confusing).Jamshyd 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hair and fingernails are conventionally seen as artefacts remaining from our evolution from animals with functional fur and functional claws. The Omphalos hypothesis argues that God created us with remnants of body hair and non-functional fingernails to make it look as if we had evolved from such ancestors. Likewise fossils of hominids were created by God to make it look as if we evolved from these ancestors. --Tediouspedant (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Overall

message: um, whoever wrote the main part of this article knows nothing of bertrand russell. in the link given he even states "I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting. All that I am doing is to use its logical tenability as a help in the analysis of what occurs when we remember." --MilkMiruku
*The article doesn't say Bertrand Russell believed this, merely that he discussed it (which he did, and notably so).  BD2412 talk 23:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the line "A world in which some essentially followed Russell's theory as a..." makes it sound like the theory was russells alone when he specifically called it an uninteresting sceptical hypotheses. how about changing it to "A world in which some essentially followed a similar theory as a...". is there any info anywhere if Jorge Luis Borges was directly influenced by Bertrand Russell? --MilkMiruku 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved that a bit, clarifying that it was really Russell's observation of Gosse's theory - will research Russell's possible influence on Borges (which seems logical in light of their respective eras).  BD2412 talk 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to correct any language with which you disagree, this being Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 02:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it a touch in the direction you've suggested. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 8/6/07 it still sounds like the idea is being attributed to Russell. 76.2.12.155 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bertrand russell 

message: The proper title of the book is Creation (Omphalos): An attempt to untie the geological knot. I have a copy of the original edition, and can send anyone who doubts it a scan of the title page.
The misunderstanding is based on the title as given in Father and Son by Edmund Gosse, who is presumably remembering how it was referred to in the family.John Wilkins 09:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see a photocopy of the original on Google books, though only on archive.org, at http://www.archive.org/details/omphalosanattem00gossgoog . This clearly shows the original title. Evidently it was reissued the same year with the "Creation" title in an attempt to boost sales. Chris55 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book title 

message: 5 minute earth should be merged here because it is essentially a copy and paste of a chunk of information from this article, and contains nothing requiring a separate article. bd2412 T 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[5 minute earth]] 

message: Someone suggested merging Last Thursdayism into this article. I disagree, because I think that the other article has too many contents that are not related to the omphalos hypothesis to merge it into this article. Another problem is that Last Thursdayism is contained in the :Category:Joke religions and this article should not be contained in that category. --Danogo 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some discussion of this already - scroll up a few cm.  It's just as well you've reminded me though - I forgot to vote.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Last Thursdayism]]? 

message: How exaxtly is this related to creationism--I don't see the connectionTrevorLSciAct 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism 

message: Borges' essay mentioned in this article pointed to Chateaubriand's book Genie de christianisme ("Genius of Christianity", 1802), Part I, Book IV, Chapter V, "Jeunesse et vieillesse de la terre" ("Youth and Old Age of the Earth"). This chapter begins: 
:"We now come to the third objection to the modern origin of the globe. "The earth," it is said, "is an aged nurse, who betrays her antiquity in every thing. Examine her fossils, her marbles, her granites, her lavas, and you will discover in them a series of innumerable years, marked by circles, strata, or branches, as the age of a serpent is determined by his rattles, that of a horse by his teeth, or that of a stage by his antlers.
:"This difficulty has been solved a hundred times by the following answer: God might have created, and doubtless did create, the world with all the marks of antiquity and completeness which it now exhibits."
:(I'm using the translation by Charles I. White published in 1857 - Italics in original.)
It seems appropriate to mention this early reference (full quotation not necessary). If no one complains, I will add a couple of lines about it.  TomS TDotO
I just wanted to point out that the quote from this excerpt is misleading the way it is quoted. The quote cites the 1802 book, but goes on to talk about red-shifted light, which must have been added or revised in a later translation since the effect of red-shifted light was not observed experimentally until 1848 Grahampositive (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The red-shift quote is from Dovid Gottlieb's (undated) website not from Chateaubriand. Chris55 (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chateaubriand 

message: Isn't that St Augustine originally? Leon 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Borges Quote

message: "In particular, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an author whose works have been banned by those who either fear the controversial potential of their content or take offense at his perceived irreverence to classical thought"
Banned where?  By whom?  And did these banners literally declare "I fear the controversial potential of his work's content"? Roarshocker (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned? 

message: Why does "last thursday" link here? Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read through the second paragraph of the article, you will see why. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to have a citation. I thought it was vandalism but unsure. Anyway thanks for clearing that up. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you keep looking, there is a paragraph about Last Thursdayism later in the article. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be helpful to have some kind of pointer to this paragraph? Perhaps a mention at the top of the article? Perhaps the link from "Last Thursday" could be directly to this paragraph, rather than the article as a whole? Perhaps the discussion of "Last Thursday" could get its own heading? (BTW, I'd say that putting it under "Other religions" is not quite appropriate.)  Or, at least, put the first use of the expression in boldface? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Was looking for this concept now on Wikipedia, was disappointed to see that it results in a biased redirect like this. I agree that it should be established as its own Wiki page. 2600:1700:7F:9000:D0EE:728F:2318:DE70 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Last thursday

message: What does the fact that R' Slifkin's works have been banned have to do with this article? And why do we have to know the reason ("goes against the tenents of the Talmud" -- that's misleading at best. According to Rabbi Aaron Feldman, that's not the reason R' Eliashiv banned it.).
 
Obviously from the article's context -- it continues in an attempt to refute this claim quoted in the name of R' Slifkin -- this is a POV issue and an attempt to make R' Slifkin look bad. --Yodamace1 (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of the statement that his works have been banned may not be relevant here.  If this is specifically due to the particular works cited here, and if this "ban" is notable (i.e. is Slifkin's work widely viewed as "heretical"?), then it might be worth remarking in passing that these specific views are opposed.  But, otherwise, I reckon that we don't need a mention.  --PLUMBAGO 10:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: To say something like his views aren't in vogue in the chareidi world -- which I see an earlier version of this article did -- would be one thing, but this is bordering on slander. Some rabbis think his arguments are heretical, some were vocal supporters of him. In addition, the rabbi who's considered the "biggest" in chareidi circles banned it not because he thought it was heretical, but because he thought a community wasn't ready for it.
And his arguments are obviously more complex than that quote would indicate. R' Slifkin doesn't believe in dismissing anything from the Torah, but he does believe in allegorization and reinterpretation. --Yodamace1 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeah right

message: We've a section in the article on formal systems at the moment (chess and The Game of Life).  While I found them very interesting and educational (they were welcome news to me), I don't believe that they belong here.  Both describe states of formal systems that cannot have been reached from earlier states by applying the "rules" that guide these systems.  
This is quite different from the omphalos argument which boils down to: "the initial state of the universe in 4004 BC (or whenever; last Thursday for instance) contains within it the appearance of having evolved from earlier states, but the Good Lord faked these".  This 4004 BC state is entirely consistent with known rules (i.e. it could be reached by applying them to earlier states), but it just didn't use them to get there (i.e. it was created ex nihilo in that state).  The omphalos argument tacitly accepts that the world gives the appearance of earlier states, but claims that these were necessarily put in for the universe to be "functional".  The formal systems are describing something quite different: states that could not have arisen from earlier states.  
Anyway, I'll leave the text in for now in case anyone wants to defend it, but I'll otherwise delete it in a few days.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I agree; they're interesting to note in a general sense but don't seem to have any relevance to the article.  The whole point of the omphalos argument is that whether the observed states could be reached from earlier ones or not is irrelevant, because the "creator" could do whatever it wants.  KarlM (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that this was irrelevant, since the point of the omphalos hypothesis is to "explain" why the world contains evidence of earlier states despite not having them (e.g. supernovae, sedimentary rocks, umbilical scars).  Anyway, in the absence of any explanation for why we should retain it, I've now removed the section.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal systems 

message: (1) Re "Logical issues" I would point out that the section seems to have been moved and cropped, most likely by Skomorokh, but as it stands now the text of that section is an echo of the lines directly above it. So, It should probably just get deleted. I was originally trying to point out that the quote cited was wicked-retaaaded from a logical stand point. I have been enlightened by Skomorokh that doing this directly is not done in an encyclopedia. As it stands now I believe I/we have done more harm than good. Both because there is now redundancy and, moreover, because the new "Logical issues" section implies that there is a logical problem with the topic when, in fact, there is a logical problem with the citation. Is deleting the sentence the best thing to do in such a case?
2) Also, I am lost as to why the history pages for the article do not seem to contain a record of the section having been moved. Is there something I am missing, a way to see the record of it?
3) I need to ask a question about some of the unquoted parts of one section in particular, I am pasting that section below:
"However, careful consideration shows that the false history was most certainly not complete."[12] Did Adam have memories of his non-existent childhood? Would he have mementos of his non-existent childhood? Would he have scars from the non-existent proverbial fall off of his non-existent proverbial tricycle? If one answers these questions with a smile and a quick nod of the head, why is it that Adam would possess a scar from his non-existent umbilical cord not being removed? "Since the false history must have necessarily been incomplete, it is difficult to argue that God should have created a false history at all."[13]
in the above, there are four sentences each ending with a "?". The section begins and ends with quoted sentences which are tagged with citations. But how is it that the four sentences/questions are being allowed here. They look to me like the sort of thing that I was corrected for? But much worse. FortyYrOldUniverse (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical issues, three questions 

message: I propose this article for deletion on the grounds that it is a non-topic and unsupported by citations. I can find no evidence that anyone has proposed or defended an "Omphalos hypothesis" apart from the original author of the book, which already has its own article. Two philosophers (Chateaubriand and Russell) who were claimed to have something to do with it never expressed themselves about it - one for the good reason that he was writing 50 years before the book was published. The only reference to someone who believes anything like this is a mathematical logician (Dovid Gottlieb) and he doesn't mention it. Other creationists steer well clear. Any references to the tag seem to reflect each individual's ideas, not that of the original author, which was a quite specific idea he called prochronism.
The fact that the article has a "creationism2" tag shows that it is part of the creationists' general tendency to sow confusion about the issue. This is supported by the number of links to the article (and to Omphalos (theology)) which mostly appear to have been deleted already. The only remaining links I can find are from creationist pages. Wikipedia should not be used for this type of partisan promotion.
I'd be willing for the page to be redirected to Omphalos (book). Chris55 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other Creationsits Here is a link to Al Mohler,president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, endorsing the idea in response to the recent detection of Gravity waves. 
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/30924-mohler-applauds-discovery-of-gravitational-waves-but-says-it-doesn-t-prove-anything
I would the article needs a major rewrite rather than a deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.220.112 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

text: strongly disagree This article should be kept. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: could you give some reasons please. Chris55 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "omphalos" concept is widely discussed (for example, SJ Gould has an essay somewhere about it), there was enough interest for the book to have been reprinted in the 20th century, and a discussion of it sheds light on some issues of epistemology. As an extreme position it has more importance than just how many people explicitly adhere to it, rather like, in their own ways, Pyrrhonian skepticism or Flat earth. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is not about the book. That has its own article at Omphalos (book) which is a much better discussion than this. This article has become a dumping ground for other deleted articles such as Last Thursdayism and Five minute hypothesis which have little more substance. Let me quote you what Russell said immediately after the quote which is here: "I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting." Most philosophers would agree. (Last Thursdayism is traced to a quip on Usenet.) Unlike the cases you quote, nobody appears to believe in the Omphalos hypothesis, even Gosse. Chris55 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Strongly disagree.  It's the focus (if not the actual origin) of "deceptive creator" arguments.  These occur frequently in creationist lit, explaining away evidence by claiming that the universe was created with the "appearance of age".  KarlM (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: With regard to the recent (12:31, 16 February 2016) editor who thinks that this needs a major rewrite. What suggestions are there for rewriting?    TomS TDotO (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for deletion

message: My attention has just been called to this essay, which might have something relevant to a recent defense of the Omphalos hypothesis, "Why does the universe look so old", by Albert Mohler, at the "Biologos" website:
http://www.biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old
TomS TDotO (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I haven't read the article thoroughly, there seems only one sentence that could be taken to be "omphalos-like", it starts: "The universe looks old because the creator made it whole." The poor guy is grappling with a lot of contradictions that he'd like to believe in and it seems he needed some way of rounding off his speech. But he doesn't elaborate. The website stands by "theistic evolution" so they probably can't be classified as creationists in the normal sense. Chris55 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. (Except that the website does not appear to be endorsing, but merely reporting, the talk.) TomS TDotO (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the universe look so old? 

message: A quote from person A criticizing person B, followed by a statement in Wikipedia's voice that B did not actually say what A criticizes him for ("Gosse, however, did not assert that God deceived us, only that...") sounds like WP:NOR to me.  I didn't delete this because I don't want to get into a minefield and it's not really fair to take out only the example I happened to notice, but someone ought to look at this. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: Rabbi Slifkin's view can be counted, but it's not the only one, and it's definitely not the majority Orthodox Jewish view. Omphalos is widely accepted among Orthodox Jews, and the charge of "divine deception" is countered by citing the Orthodox Jewish doctrine that the entire material dimension is designed, for the sake of free will, in such a way that HaShem's providence is hidden from plain sight--it is Olam HaSheqer, Alma DeShiqra, the World of the Lie, in the Sages' strong terminology, although we might in gentler terms call it a world of scenery hiding the true, spiritual Divine Play going on behind. Omphalos fits right in with this view, hence its popularity among Orthodox Jewish believers. (Appearance of age; but not of history--Darwinism is widely rejected, especially by the Ultra Orthodox, mostly on account of blurring the division between mankind and beast.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.95.79 (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Jewish views 

message: I'm not going to revert the text that you deleted, because it (what you deleted) seems to me to be WP:OR. If there is a secondary source which makes this point, I would say that such a source may address your objections. I think that the Principle of charity justifies making the best reasonable case, however weak it may seem.     TomS TDotO (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for Gosse 

message: On May 26, 2016, the terms "pseudoscientific" and "false evidence" were added to the opening sentence to define the subject of this article. The justification given was as follows: "If it is going to be a "hypothesis", it needs to be clarified as Category:Pseudoscience." 
The previous opening sentence read: "The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age." The new opening sentence reads: "The Omphalos hypothesis is the pseudoscientific argument that God created the universe recently (within the past ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but also introduced false evidence that the universe is of great age."
The new opening sentence has added two strong, negative, critical words that are not claimed by proponents of this belief system nor have they been applied by any third party sources which meet Wikipedia's standards. I think that this change is problematic for several reasons. 
First, "pseudoscientific" is defined, by Wikipedia's own page, as "a term used to describe a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms." I can see nowhere in any of the citations where this concept is presented as scientific in nature. This is purely a philosophical and/or theological argument. In fact, the very nature of the argument itself presupposes that it exists outside of science. It is a philosophical proposition that is an attempt to harmonize a seeming incongruity between a particular theological argument and scientific evidence. This is not the same as creationists claiming a scientific fact that does not comport to the scientific method. This is not acupuncture or naturopathy or reflexology. Heck, this isn't even creationism. This is philosophy pure and simple. 
Second, the term "false evidence" implies a determination of truth/falsehood which is not at issue in the philosophical theory. Opponents of the theory will argue that it creates false evidence, but such a claim is much more appropriate in the "Criticisms" section of the article, rather than the definition of the theory. Opponents to a philosophical theory do not get to define the theory itself. The theory makes no claim as to the truth or falsehood of evidence of age. Rather, it accepts the evidence of age and merely attempts to reconcile it with a competing, separate, theological position. 
The use of the word "hypothesis" in the concept does not, automatically, imply a claimed reliance upon the scientific method. This is just a straight up logically fallacious. Since this was the only reason given, I can't see any other justification for this change.
The original opening sentence was a fair, even handed definition of the theory. There are plenty of criticisms of the theory, to be sure, but those criticisms should not work their way into an opening sentence.104.6.0.13 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If god emplaced evidence that makes it appear that the universe is older than it actually is, then is this not "false evidence"? No judgement is being made, but it would be "false evidence". I wouldn't know what else to call it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To claim that signs of age are (a) evidence and (b) false presupposes a specific purpose and interpretation of those signs. It's certainly your interpretation and argument that the signs of age would constitute evidence of age and that that evidence would be false, but that's your personal interpretation of the signs of age within this theory. The omphalos hypothesis makes no such claim. It's not an attempt to explain why signs of age are present or why a god would have created the earth that way. Rather, the theory simply states that (a) there are signs of age, and (b) for a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis to be true, those signs must have been created by god. It doesn't presume that one or the other must be true and that the other is false. It doesn't approach that question. Rather, it just says that if both are true then the signs have to have been created. You state "I don't know what else to call it." Why do you have to call it anything? The original language in the article stated "signs of age," which is perfectly neutral and not lacking in any way.104.6.0.13 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the cited source calls it pseudoscience, and if the evidence is intentionally and knowingly made to give the wrong conclusions, then it is "false evidence". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Sources or not, this seems to fit cleanly into the field of philosophy, not pseudoscience. The use of these terms reflects a bias that isn't usual for Wikipedia. — Supuhstar * — 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That reasoning would be more impressive if you made it on a website that, unlike Wikipedia, values the impressions of users higher than sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the terms "pseudoscientific" and "false evidence" in the opening sentence 

message: "Among the many problems with this hypothesis (including lack of any evidence and lack of reference to the phenomenon in the Bible) is that it would require that God adjusted the shift in exquisitely precise ways for each of the billions of individual galaxies"
An omnipotent entity is by definition capable of anything, including this. In addition, the phrasing does not appear to be NPOV. I suggest that this be revised. 2603:9001:4706:D2:C7C:762A:AF97:D4FB (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with section Red Shift Challenge