Replies

I would, on the basis of what I perceive to be factual data, point to artifacts which, to the experience of most observers, date beyond last Thursday.

Don't forget, it has been made to look as if it dates beyond last Thursday ;)

When you think about it, if our brains are but chemical reactions produced by natural processes outside of intelligent design, who is to say for sure such a claim is not TRUE?!

As opposed to what? Ectoplasmic or spiritual reactions?
But even if we were intelligently designed and our minds are not "only" processes in a material brain (but processes in some kind of supernatural entity) we cannot say whether this designer isn't also the product of an even higher intelligent entity (e.g. super[2]natural) and so on? In other words it's Turtles all the way up.

And that's exactly what Occams Razor is about. If there is no way to tell whether [A] or NOT[A] is true, NOT[A] is assumed unless we find compelling evidence for [A].

I *did* forget about the apparent age. Thanks for reminding me. As far as I can tell, that would be a difficult claim to dispute. How would you do it?

On the face of it I treat it as an interesting philosophical proposal but I do not sense it matches objective reality. But on what basis apart from what I have been taught? A *real* skeptic would say everything we know about ourselves and the universe is but a figment of the imagination. Can you disprove that claim?

I tend to walk a fine line between reason and unreason, as you can probably tell.