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

但隨後低聲說：「哦，順便告訴你，宇宙中的一切，包括這本相冊

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

都是上週四製作出來的。而所有這些記憶都是假的。

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

這就是所謂的“上週四主義”，它表明世界是上週四剛剛創造的，

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

這個概念是如此奇怪，讓一般的陰謀論看起來就像是普通常識依樣合理。

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

有趣的是，你實際上無法證明它是錯誤的，

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

你可以指出化石或上週三從雜貨店收到的收據

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

，但我也可以說它們都不是有效的證據。

So let's talk about it.

那麼我們來談談吧。 在我們討論「最後星期四主義」之前，

Before we talk about Last Thursdayism, it will be  

先討論「亞當肚臍假說」（翁法洛斯假說）

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

會很有幫助，以了解背景。

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

亞當肚臍假說和最後星期四主義是兩個探索

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

宇宙年齡 概念 以及它如何與宗教信仰揉合

particularly those found in Western traditions.

（尤其是西方傳統中的宗教信仰）。

So

那

What is The Omphalos Hypothesis?

什麼是亞當肚臍假說呢？

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

亞當肚臍假說是由Philip Henry Gosse於1857年在其著作《Omphalos》中提出的。

This hypothesis attempts to reconcile  the scientific evidence of the Earth  

這個假說試圖將地球

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

已有數十億年歷史的科學證據與聖經對創世的記載相協調，

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

顯示地球只是被創造成看起來很古老。

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

它假設當上帝創造地球時，成熟的系統和有機體雖被製造出來

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

，但只是具有實際未發生的歷史發展跡象（例如化石）而非真的發生過那些自然歷史。

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

亞當肚臍假說的名字來自希臘語“omphalos”，意思是“肚臍”。

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

這個名字象徵性地提到了亞當被創造時有一個肚臍，這暗示了

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

他的出生和成長的證據，儘管根據聖經，他被創造

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

為一個完全成形的成年人，理論上，如果你仔細想想的話，不應該有肚臍。

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

菲利普·亨利·戈斯（Philip Henry Gosse）用這個圖像來論證上帝可能創造了地球時留下類似「證據」，

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

但這些（自然歷史）事實上並未發生。這包括

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

化石和地質特徵之類的東西，這些東西暗示著一個古老的地球

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

但《聖經》的字面解釋，世界只在幾千年前被創造出來，但看起來卻很古老。

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

戈斯提出，正如亞當的肚臍暗示了從未真正發生過的

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

亞當有過在肚子裡有臍帶的「歷史」一樣，地球也可能包含暗示地質

and evolutionary histories that are  merely artifacts of its creation.

和進化歷史的特徵，而這些特徵僅僅是神創世界時的副產物。

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

他的想法是試圖彌合地質學和古生物學

in geology and paleontology,  which indicated an old Earth,  

領域新興科學發現（表明地球古老）

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

與聖經字面解釋（支持年輕地球）之間的差距。

This idea suggests that these  signs were a necessary part of  

這個假說認為，這些歷史跡像是神創造世界的必要組成部分

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

，但不能用來證明地球的年齡。

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

但顯然這種理論並非沒有被批評，那麼

What are some criticisms  of the Omphalos Hypothesis?

亞當肚臍假說有哪些批評呢？

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

亞當肚臍假說的批評者從科學和神學的角度都認為

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

它暗示了創造論過程的欺騙性，因為它表明宇宙

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

被製造出有長久歷史的樣子，而這些年齡和歷史實際上並沒有發生。

This undermines both the empirical reliability  

這既破壞了科學觀察的經驗可靠性

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

，也破壞了創造者的道德誠信。

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

從科學的角度來看，批評者認為該假設破壞了經驗證據的

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

可靠性 。 如果世界是在遠古時代出現的，

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

那麼可觀測的數據——如地質構造、放射性測年結果

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

和化石記錄——就不能被信任來揭示地球的真實年齡。

This challenges the foundational  principles of scientific inquiry,  

這對科學探究的基本原則提出了挑戰，科學探究的基本原則

which rely on the assumption that the  universe operates consistently and  

依賴於宇宙持續運行以及

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

可以可靠地利用觀測結果得出有關自然世界的結論的假設。

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

從神學角度來看，這一假說也因暗示造物主似乎具有欺騙性

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

而受到批評。許多神學家發現造物主具有欺騙性的想法

incompatible with their understanding  of a truthful and benevolent God.

與他們對真實仁慈的上帝的理解不相容。

Charles Hodge, a 19th-century American theologian,  

查爾斯‧霍奇（Charles Hodge），19世紀美國神學家，

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

認為欺騙行為與上帝在聖經中所揭示的本質相矛盾。

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

同樣，普林斯頓神學院的 BB Warfield 強調

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

神的欺騙行為會破壞所有神聖啟示的可信度。

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

拉比納坦·斯利夫金 (Rabbi Natan Slifkin) 因其對聖經動物學的廣泛了解而被稱為“動物園拉比”

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

，並且撰寫了多本

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

探索猶太思想與自然科學交叉的書籍，他認為：

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

上帝本質上創造了兩種相互矛盾的創造描述：一種是自然的，

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

另一種是啟示的。如何確定哪個是真實的故事，哪個是

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

旨在誤導我們的假故事？人們同樣可以提出，大自然呈現了真實的故事，

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

而妥拉（舊約猶太聖經）是上帝設計用虛假的歷史來考驗我們！ ……

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

如果宗教要發揮作用，一個人就必須能夠依靠上帝的誠實。或者，

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

換句話說，如果上帝竭盡全力讓

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

我們相信世界已有數十億年的歷史，我們有什麼理由不同意呢？

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

這些對亞當肚臍假說的批評提出了關於神的本質和倫理的難題，

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

這個神創造一個故意誤導其居民

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

了解其真實歷史的宇宙的概念在

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

強調上帝與人類關係的真實性和開放性的傳統中尤其令人心酸。

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

此外，這種調和科學與信仰的方法被一些人視為一種

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

會減損神學對科學發現的更有意義的參與的“最下策”。

Rather than fostering a deeper understanding  and integration of scientific discoveries  

亞當肚臍假說

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

不是在宗教框架內促進對科學發現的更深入理解和整合 ，

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

而是透過提出一個本質上不可知且具有欺騙性的現實來繞過這些挑戰。

Which lead to the concept of Last Thursdayism .

這就造就了上星期四主義的概念。

So,

那麼，

What is Last Thursdayism?

什麼是上星期四主義呢？

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

上週四主義經常在幽默或諷刺的背景下討論，它

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

把這個概念推向了一個極端，它暗示宇宙可能是上週四創造的，

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

其中包含了從未實際發生過的過去的所有記憶和證據。

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

就像亞當肚臍假說一樣，它是不可證偽的，也無法透過科學手段驗證，

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

因為它假設所有經驗數據都可以被創造為「看起來是如此」的樣子。

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

這個想法被用來說明我們的觀察可能與「現實」不符的哲學觀點

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

，並批評某些宗教對創造的解釋的不可證偽性。

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

上星期四主義的起源並不歸因於特定的個人或傳統的哲學

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

論述。相反，它是一種現代戲仿，是

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

對有關世界創造的各種主張的批評，特別是那些依賴不可證偽前提的主張。

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

它類似於其他懷疑性假設，例如缸中大腦場景或模擬

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

假設，這些假設挑戰了我們對觀察和感知現實所做的假設。

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

上星期四主義常用於認識論（知識與信念的研究）的討論中，

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

以說明當某些存在主義 或形上學主張脫離經驗證據時，

or metaphysical claims when they are  detached from empirical evidence.

證明或反駁這些主張時的困難 。

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

透過斷言宇宙可能是上週四創造的，這一論點

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

諷刺地挑戰了我們建立歷史和科學真理的基礎。

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

它強調了支撐宇宙年齡和形成的假設，如果無法檢驗的話，

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

與相信宇宙在幾天前被創造並沒有本質上的不同。

In debates, particularly those  involving science and religion,  

在辯論中，特別是涉及科學和宗教的辯論中，

Last Thursdayism is invoked to  demonstrate the limits of certain  

上週四主義被用來證明某些

theological arguments that attempt  to circumvent scientific evidence.

試圖規避科學證據的神學論點的局限性 。

It is a tool used to provoke thought  on the nature of evidence and belief,  

它是一種工具，用於激發對證據和信念本質的思考，

encouraging a more critical examination of how  and why we accept some propositions over others,  

鼓勵我們對如何以及為何接受某些命題而不是其他命題進行更批判性的審查，

especially in contexts where empirical  evidence is dismissed or reinterpreted.

特別是在經驗證據被駁回或重新解釋的情況下。

This thought experiment serves not just as a  humorous critique but also as a philosophical  

這個思想實驗不僅是一種幽默的批判，也是

prompt to discuss the nature of knowledge,  reality, and the limits of human understanding.

討論知識的本質、現實和人類理解的限制的哲學提示。

Last Thursdayism ＆ Omphalos Hypothesis highlight  the philosophical and theological debates about  

《上週四主義與亞當肚臍假說》強調了關於 現實本質、證據解釋以及人類

the nature of reality, the interpretation  of evidence, and the limitations of human  

理解在調和科學發現與宗教信仰方面

understanding in reconciling scientific  discoveries with religious beliefs.

的局限性的 哲學和神學辯論 。

So here you go, If you want to learn  more about the topics I shared today,  

那麼就到這裡吧，如果你想了解更多我今天分享的主題，

you can check out the further reading  list in the description, and if you  

可以查看說明中的延伸閱讀列表，如果你

want to learn more random knowledge,  please subscribe. See you next time.

想了解更多隨機知識，請訂閱。下次見。