Name: Did the Universe Begin Last Thursday? The Last Thursdayism'& Omphalos Hypothesis Explained
Uploaded: 2024-04-28T21:29:52.000Z
Duration: 8 min 54 s

Imagine you made it to heaven and god hands you a  photo album filled with your childhood memories,  

but then whispers, "Oh, by the way,  everything in the universe including this  

album was whipped up last Thursday." And all these memories are fake. 

That is called Last Thursdayism, which suggests  the world was just created last Thursday,  

a concept so odd it makes regular conspiracy  theories look like plain old common sense. 

And here's the fun thing, you  actually cannot prove it wrong,  

I mean you can point to the fossils or  the receipt you got from the grocery store  

last Wednesday, but I can also argue  that none of them are valid evidence.

Before we talk about Last Thursdayism, it will be  

helpful to talk about the Omphalos  Hypothesis first, just for context.

The Omphalos Hypothesis and Last Thursdayism  are two ideas that explore the concept of  

the age of the universe and how  it aligns with religious beliefs,  

particularly those found in Western traditions.

The Omphalos Hypothesis was proposed by Philip  Henry Gosse in 1857 in his book "Omphalos".

This hypothesis attempts to reconcile  the scientific evidence of the Earth  

being billions of years old with  the biblical account of creation,  

suggesting that the Earth was created  with the appearance of being old.

It posits that when God created the Earth,  it included mature systems and organisms  

complete with signs of historical development  (e.g., fossils) that did not actually occur.

The Omphalos Hypothesis takes its name from  the Greek word "omphalos," which means "navel."  

This name is a symbolic reference to the supposed  creation of Adam with a navel, which would suggest  

a history of birth and development even though,  according to biblical tradition, he was created  

as a fully formed adult, who theoretically, if you  think about it, shouldn't have a navel otherwise.

Philip Henry Gosse used this imagery to argue  that God might have created the Earth with  

similar "evidence" of a past that didn't  actually occur. This includes things like  

fossils and geological features that suggest an  ancient world, designed to appear old despite  

being created only thousands of years ago,  as per a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Gosse proposed that just as Adam's navel would  imply a history of umbilical nourishment that  

never actually happened, so too might the  Earth contain features implying geological  

and evolutionary histories that are  merely artifacts of its creation.

His idea was an attempt to bridge the gap  between emerging scientific discoveries  

in geology and paleontology,  which indicated an old Earth,  

and the literal interpretations of  the Bible that espouse a young Earth.

This idea suggests that these  signs were a necessary part of  

creation but cannot be used  to prove the Earth's age​​.

But obviously this kind of theory  is not without criticism, so

What are some criticisms  of the Omphalos Hypothesis?

Critics of the Omphalos Hypothesis, both  from scientific and theological perspectives,  

argue that it implies a deceptive nature  to creation, as it suggests the universe  

was created with the appearance of age  and history that did not actually occur.

This undermines both the empirical reliability  

of scientific observations and the  moral integrity ascribed to a creator.

From a scientific perspective, critics argue  that the hypothesis undermines the reliability  

of empirical evidence. If the world was  created with the appearance of an ancient past,  

then observable data—like geological  formations, radiometric dating results,  

and fossil records—cannot be trusted  to reveal the true age of the Earth.

This challenges the foundational  principles of scientific inquiry,  

which rely on the assumption that the  universe operates consistently and  

that observations can be reliably used to  draw conclusions about the natural world.

Theologically, the hypothesis has also  faced criticism for suggesting a creator  

who appears to deceive. Many theologians  find the idea of a deceptive creator to be  

incompatible with their understanding  of a truthful and benevolent God.

Charles Hodge, a 19th-century American theologian,  

argued that deception contradicts  God's revealed nature in the Bible.

Similarly, B.B. Warfield from the  Princeton School of Theology highlighted  

that divine deception would undermine the  trustworthiness of all divine revelation.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin, known as the "Zoo Rabbi" due  

to his extensive knowledge of biblical  zoology and authorship of several books  

exploring the intersection of Jewish  thought and natural science, argues:

God essentially created two conflicting  accounts of Creation: one in nature,  

and one in the Torah. How can it be determined  which is the real story, and which is the fake  

designed to mislead us? One could equally propose  that it is nature that presents the real story,  

and that the Torah was devised by God  to test us with a fake history! ...

One has to be able to rely on God's  truthfulness if religion is to function. Or,  

to put it another way—if God went  to enormous lengths to convince  

us that the world is billions of  years old, who are we to disagree?

These criticisms to the Omphalos Hypothesis  raise difficult questions about the nature  

and ethics of a deity who would create  a universe that deliberately misleads  

its inhabitants about its true history.  This concern is particularly poignant in  

traditions that emphasize the truthfulness and  openness of God's relationship with humanity.

Additionally, this approach to reconciling  science and faith is seen by some as a kind of  

"last resort" that detracts from more meaningful  theological engagement with scientific findings.

Rather than fostering a deeper understanding  and integration of scientific discoveries  

within a religious framework, the Omphalos  Hypothesis might be viewed as bypassing these  

challenges by positing a reality that  is inherently unknowable and deceptive.

Which lead to the concept of Last Thursdayism .

Last Thursdayism, often discussed in a  somewhat humorous or satirical context,  

takes this concept to an extreme by suggesting the  universe could have been created last Thursday,  

complete with all memories and evidence  of a past that never actually occurred.

Like the Omphalos Hypothesis, it is unfalsifiable  and unverifiable through scientific means,  

as it posits that all empirical data could  have been created to look the way it does.

This idea is used to illustrate the philosophical  point that our observations might not match with  

"reality" and critiques the unfalsifiability of  certain religious explanations of creation​​​​.

The origin of Last Thursdayism isn't attributed to  a specific individual or traditional philosophical  

discourse. Instead, it is a modern parody  that serves as a critique of various claims  

about the creation of the world, particularly  those that rely on unfalsifiable premises.

It is akin to other skeptical hypotheses, such  as the brain-in-a-vat scenario or the simulation  

hypothesis, which challenge the assumptions we can  make about our observations and perceived reality.

Last Thursdayism is often used in discussions  on epistemology—the study of knowledge and  

belief—to illustrate the difficulties in  proving or disproving certain existential  

or metaphysical claims when they are  detached from empirical evidence.

By asserting that the universe could have  been created last Thursday, the argument  

satirically challenges the bases upon which  we establish historical and scientific truths.

It highlights how assumptions underpinning the  age and formation of the universe, if untestable,  

are not fundamentally different from believing  in a universe created just a few days ago.