Talk:Last Thursdayism

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This idea is in a few of Borges's stories except it's Last Second-ism. And if you gonna go with a last Thursday there is no reason why you shouldn't go with the last Second. Apparantly there's some serious theological discussion about this somewhere among some people who get serious about this kind of stuff.radek 08:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I remember reading about this term sometime in my late childhood --- early teenage years (early 1990s).... and I don't think it was in talk.origins.... I think it was in a philosophy textbook from the 1960s.... sadly I can't remember what.... --SJK 11:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various variants of the idea have been jumping around for a while, mainly as critiques of omphalism. I am not aware of Last Thursdayism specificially being such a variant prior to it appearing on talk.origins, but I could be wrong. JoshuaZ 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious difference

There is an obvious difference between the idea that the earth was created with an apparent age and the idea that the earth was created last Thursday along with it's inhabitants' memories up to last Thursday. One, the creation of an earth with an apparent age for purposes of its function, allows people to mislead themselves into believing that the earth is older than it is. The other, involving the creation of memories with no basis in reality and no necessity for the functioning of the earth and its inhabitants, is an outright lie, which God is not capable of. The first allows you to lie to yourself, while the second would be God lying to you, which he, according to the bible, would never do, in fact cannot do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely. Oh, except of course, for all those times he lies. 80.93.170.99 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "obvious" exactly? Is not "you have freewill" + "love me or suffer eternally" just as insidious? You are trying to make an artificial distinction based upon what would appear to be your own beliefs. --Belg4mit 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that young earth believers claim that the first people did not have memories of the time before there creation is insignificant. It is no more or less of a lie if memories of the time before are imprinted in people's minds directly, or if they conclusively deduce that the world is older than it really is because it is made to look that way. The comparison only makes sense if we claim that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the world is in fact billions of years old , a claim which any reputable scientist will support. --King Mir 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, God in first case is still lying, sending into your telescope light from supernova that allegedly happened ten milion years ago - but if Earth and universe have 6000 years, this supernova never existed and have no basis in reality (your own words). God tells (by photons already "in way" in space that He created Himself) about things that never happened. Ergo, God is liar. Well, and one would wonder what "for purposes of its function" means.--83.144.95.66 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]