Creationist philosophy explained

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I made a little website explaining creationist philosophy.

http://creationistischreveil.nl/home-english/

Creationist philosophy is about the generic underlaying structure of creationist theory without regard to specifics of who created what when.

Creationist philosophy is much better than materialist philosophy because creationism has separate categories for facts and opinions. Materialism is really only suitable for facts

Because of this separation of fact from opinion creationist philosophy deals a blow to social darwinism (to take prescriptive applicablity from natural selection theory).

Creationism is better capable to deal with the facts of how things are chosen in the universe. Where in evolution theory free will is commonly denied, these facts fit withing the creationist framework.

While facts about descendancy fit within a creationist frame of reference, the evidence of the efficient functional integration of organimsis points to intelligent design of organisms. Science simply has never seriously considered that freedom is real, and what it is doing in the universe.

 

[George-ananda]

@Mohammad Nur Syamsu Before I get into reading all this, I want to understand what you mean by 'creationism'. Do you believe man came to exist through the process of evolution? Your answer to this will jump start me on understanding where you are coming from.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Here is the page on fact from the website.

Fact


A fact is a copy, a 1 to 1 model of something. A book about the moon containing facts about the moon, is a model of the moon in the form of words, pictures and mathematics.

A fact is forced by evidence, cause and effect. The moon is the cause, the facts about the moon the effect of that cause. What the fact is about forces what the fact is. What the moon consists of forces what facts are in the book about the moon.





The existence of things in imagination is a matter of fact as well, because somebody can model 1 to 1 on paper what is happening in their imagination.

.


If a proposed fact is not an accurate 1 to 1 corresponding copy, then the proposed fact is false.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Here is the page explaining opinion

Opinion

An opinion is formed by choosing about what it is that chooses. For example the opinion "the painting is beautiful"

By spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, a choice is made between the words "beautiful" and "ugly". Either option is equally correct.

At first both words are in the future as possibilities. The decision is that one of the alternatives in the future is made the present. The word "beautiful" is chosen, therefore the word becomes to be said in the present.

To say the painting is "beautiful" means to say there exists a love for the way the painting looks in the heart. This love is what chose between the words beautiful and ugly.

The existence of this love for the painting is also a matter of opinion. That means the conclusion that the love is not real, is just as well correct as the conclusion that the love is real. In the same way that both conclusions "ugly" and "beautiful" were correct, both conclusions "the love is real", and "the love is not real", are correct.

So there are 2 requirements for an opinion in order for it to be valid.

• 1: The opinion must be chosen.
• 2: The opinion must be about something that chooses.

If a proposed opinion does not meet those requirementes, then the opinion is wrong.

For example if somebody is forced to say the painting is beautiful, that he or she doesn't have the possibility of choosing the word ugly, then it is not really an opinion, because it is not chosen.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Here is the overview page of how fact and opinion fit together in one conceptual scheme. That is about all the information on the website.

Creationism

There are two categories in creationism, creator and creation.

Bewerken
Creator
Chooses
existence is a matter of opinion
an opinion is formed by choosing, expression of emotion with free will
Also called spiritual domain. Also called universe, or material domain.
For example; emotions like love and hate, the soul, God

Creation
is chosen
existence is a matter of fact
A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a 1 to 1 model of what is evidenced.
For example; Planets and stars, organisms, fantasyfigures, mathematics, language

What follows are some practical examples on how to apply the information in the table above.


The planet Venus.

One can see the planet, one can make a 1 to 1 model of it, therefore the existence of it is a fact.


The planet Venus is chosen. That means at one time there were the possibilities in the future that the planet would be, and that the planet would not be. The decision turned out that the planet Venus came to be.


Maybe there were a lot of independent decisions by which the planet was created, maybe it was just one or a few decisions. The decisions could have turned out differently, then there would have been something else.


Who made the decisions turn out the way they did, the answer to this question can only be given by choosing the answer. That means that there are at least 2 valid answers to the question, because someone needs at least two possibilities to be able to choose.


Love.

One cannot see or measure love, one cannot make a 1 to 1 model of it.


Love chooses, for example love chooses that people marry. There are the possibilities to marry and not to marry in the future, and love took care of it that the possibility marriage was made the present.


The existence of love is a matter of opinion. If the married couple really love each other, they cannot even know it themselves as fact. They can only express their emotions about it with free will. Maybe they choose the words that they love each other. They can jump and hop about with the corners of their mouths turned upwards, it still doesn't prove as fact that their love is real. But maybe that would influence the opinion that their love is real.


Overview

What is in the spiritual domain chooses what comes to be in the material domain. Making a choice is the mechanism of creation. What exists in the material domain is a matter of fact, what is in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion. One obtains a fact by copying from the material domain forced by evidence, one forms an opinion by choosing about what is in the spiritual domain in freedom.


Advanced:

Creationist philosophy is borrowed from the religious creation theories, but then only the underlaying logic in the theory. Without specific reference to who created what when. The logic of creationism has the same logic that is used in common discourse when people talk in terms of choosing things, by religious people as well as non-religious people.


Creationism is a better philosophy than materialism, because in materialism there's barely or no room for opinions. There is really only room for facts in materialist philosophy.


Often making choices is defined in terms of sorting out the best result, where the facts about what is good and evil are used to sort the options with. With this definition of choosing the result of the choice is forced by what the facts of good and evil are, and the decision cannot turn out any alternative way. So that doesn't work.

Correct is that one first forms the opinion about what one likes by choosing in expression of emotion with free will, and then uses that opinion to sort options with. Only the original forming of the opinion was by choice, the consequent sorting is not choosing.

But people are extremely insistent on defining choosing in terms of sorting out the best result. That is because if choosing is defined as sorting out the best result, then by definition each time they've made a choice they did the best. To know they are doing the best makes people literally feel high, it is very addictive.


The science about how things are chosen in the universe (also called intelligent design theory) is still not meaningfully developed. But there are already some global outlines on how it works.


Creation science:

1. Mathematics is the the theory of everything in the material domain.
2. Mathematics is ordered on the basis of the zero. Creati ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihil fit. Creation from nothing and from nothing comes nothing. That means that the totality of the universe can only be 0. For example the principle "an action has an equal and opposite reaction". That results in a totality of 0.
3. Objects in the universe consist of the laws of nature, in stead of that objects "follow" the laws of nature. As laws unto themselves it can be mathematically established that objects have freedom
4. The mathematical ordering of the physical universe is the same as the mathematical ordering of the DNA system. What that means is that the DNA system is a world in it's own right, similar to how human imagination and a 3D computergame are worlds in their own right. In principle there could be all sorts of things in the DNA world of a human being, like plants, the moon and sun, the opposite sex. In this DNA world the form of the organism is chosen, and this chosen form in the DNA world serves as guidance for development of the physical organism to adulthood.

 

[David M]

The existence of love is a matter of opinion. If the married couple really love each other, they cannot even know it themselves as fact.

Same mistakes as you always make, an inability to separate existence and applicability. By your own criteria the existence of love is not a matter of opinion it is a fact, individual experiance of love is not a fact neither in type or strength of feeling.

Creationism is a better philosophy than materialism, because in materialism there's barely or no room for opinions. There is really only room for facts in materialist philosophy.

Same falsehoods as always, materialism has just as much room for opinion as for fact, it is just rigorous in making sure that the two things are not confused.

That is because if choosing is defined as sorting out the best result, then by definition each time they've made a choice they did the best.

But that is not how choosing is defined, its selecting an option which may or may not give the best result.

Creation science:

1. Mathematics is the the theory of everything in the material domain.
2. Mathematics is ordered on the basis of the zero. Creati ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihil fit. Creation from nothing and from nothing comes nothing. That means that the totality of the universe can only be 0. For example the principle "an action has an equal and opposite reaction". That results in a totality of 0.
3. Objects in the universe consist of the laws of nature, in stead of that objects "follow" the laws of nature. As laws unto themselves it can be mathematically established that objects have freedom
4. The mathematical ordering of the physical universe is the same as the mathematical ordering of the DNA system. What that means is that the DNA system is a world in it's own right, similar to how human imagination and a 3D computergame are worlds in their own right. In principle there could be all sorts of things in the DNA world of a human being, like plants, the moon and sun, the opposite sex. In this DNA world the form of the organism is chosen, and this chosen form in the DNA world serves as guidance for development of the physical organism to adulthood.

The above statements are all completely incorrect.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Same mistakes as you always make, an inability to separate existence and applicability. By your own criteria the existence of love is not a matter of opinion it is a fact, individual experiance of love is not a fact neither in type or strength of feeling.

Same falsehoods as always, materialism has just as much room for opinion as for fact, it is just rigorous in making sure that the two things are not confused.

Obviously because in creationist philosophy love is doing the choosing, the existence of it is a matter of opinion. You must be confused with your own ideas about love as measurable electrochemistry in the brain.

You just added another level of confusion by adding in the level of "experience of" love. So then you can pretend you can know love as fact, while all difficult questions about subjectivity are moved to this "experience" idea, where the questions remain unresolved.

Everybody knows there is clear room for facts in materialism, but opinion is a big questionmark in materialist philosophy, just as experience is a big questionmark in your ideas.

 

[Kirran]

I'm an evolutionist, but not a materialist.

There is substantial diversity among human ideologies.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm an evolutionist, but not a materialist.

There is substantial diversity among human ideologies.

I take a dim view of that diversity. Either you are a creationist, and then there is lots of real diversity among creationists because of the freedom of opinion, or you are not a creationist in which case there are various forms of oppression of subjectivity, with no meaningful fundamental difference.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I take a dim view of that diversity. Either you are a creationist, and then there is lots of real diversity among creationists because of the freedom of opinion, or you are not a creationist in which case there are various forms of oppression of subjectivity, with no meaningful fundamental difference.

Says the man who has taken time to actually research these ideologies, no doubt

 

[Blastcat]

I made a little website explaining creationist philosophy.

http://creationistischreveil.nl/home-english/

Creationist philosophy is about the generic underlaying structure of creationist theory without regard to specifics of who created what when.

We all know this "creationist theory" is religious.
This so called "creationist philosophy" is theology, and specifically, apologetics.

 

[Blastcat]

I made a little website explaining creationist philosophy.

http://creationistischreveil.nl/home-english/



Creationist philosophy is much better than materialist philosophy because creationism has separate categories for facts and opinions. Materialism is really only suitable for facts

What do my OPINIONS have to do with CT being sound or not?
We can evaluate facts, opinions are worthless if not based on facts.

So, give us your FACTS, and in my OPINION, you will have shown that CT is worth anyone's effort.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We all know this "creationist theory" is religious.
This so called "creationist philosophy" is theology, and specifically, apologetics.

While creationist philosophy is derived from religion, it is not the case that creationist philosophy is religious. Creationism provides the framework for subjectivity, and then of course people can use that framework for faith, as 1 form of subjectivity.

Essentially creationism can and should be taught in school and college. Now kids are already taught rightly that to say you like something etc. is different from a fact, creationism teaches the same thing but then more precisely. Creationism describes the logic of how to obtain facts, and the logic of how to form an opinion, and how they fit together in one scheme. The benefits of learning creationism are very large.

- a boon for religion, and any kind of enterprise where subjectivity is of main importance like marriage, family and friendship
- less mental illness of people through them not succumbing anymore in the head vs heart struggle confusing fact with opinon
- less social darwinism in politics, less of any kind of politics in which what is good and evil is asserted as fact, such as communism and nazism
- less prejudice in science, scientists will be better able to distinguish opinion from fact
- more understanding of the facts of how things are chosen in the universe, and any associated technological benefit that would come with that

 

[Blastcat]

While creationist philosophy is derived from religion, it is not the case that creationist philosophy is religious. Creationism provides the framework for subjectivity, and then of course people can use that framework for faith, as 1 form of subjectivity.

Doesn't fool me in the least, and I don't think you're going to get much traction from this OUTSIDE of a very narrow circle of creationists.. Without religion, this "philosophy" is completely useless. Trying to conflate creationism with subjectivity is merely trying to thinly veil an attempt to insert a creator god of your choice.

Essentially creationism can and should be taught in school and college.

As long as it's in a class about comparative religions, sure, why not study some weird apologetic?

Now kids are already taught rightly that to say you like something etc. is different from a fact, creationism teaches the same thing but then more precisely. Creationism describes the logic of how to obtain facts, and the logic of how to form an opinion, and how they fit together in one scheme. The benefits of learning creationism are very large.

This seems to be your opinion. NOT fact.

Take out the creationism, and put in Critical Thinking, and I would agree with you. People SHOULD know the difference between fact and opinion.

- a boon for religion, and any kind of enterprise where subjectivity is of main importance like marriage, family and friendship

This also seems to be your opinion. NOT fact.

Well of COURSE it would seen as a "boon" to religion.. creationism IS religious!

- less mental illness of people through them not succumbing anymore in the head vs heart struggle confusing fact with opinon

I don't need to believe in creationism in order to know facts from opinions.

- less social darwinism in politics, less of any kind of politics in which what is good and evil is asserted as fact, such as communism and nazism

LESS?.... That social Darwinism went extinct a long time ago, and so did Nazism. And by the way, Social Darwinism has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Your tilting at windmills, here.

And your knowledge of history and politics is abysmal.

- less prejudice in science, scientists will be better able to distinguish opinion from fact

Scientists have no trouble distinguishing mere opinion from facts. It's their JOB to remove biases from their observations.

- more understanding of the facts of how things are chosen in the universe, and any associated technological benefit that would come with that

How things are CHOSEN in the universe ?... what does that even mean?

How about you answer these questions, address my objections, clear up your vagueness, get your history and politics straight, separate your opinions from the facts, and then people will be way more interested in what you have to say.

As it stands, the more you write, the less this is making any sense.
Sorry.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No to pretty much everything the op said.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't need to believe in creationism in order to know facts from opinions.

Actually you do need that. Only with creationism can you distinguish fact from opinion.

It's not the case that scientists know how to distinguish fact from opinion. There are a number of approaches:
- social darwinism or scientism, to assert what is good and evil is a fact. When everything is a fact, then there is no problem to distinguish fact from opinion
- postmodernism, to assert that all facts necessarily have a subjective element to it. Is actually the same as social darwinism, but in stead to harden opinions by reconceiving them as facts, facts are softened by reconceiving them as being opinions.

Postmodernism and social darwinism are actually very big in science.

Materialism is also very big. With materialism opinion becomes to be a subcategory of facts. When I say "the painting is beautiful", then on materialist terms that opinion is interpreted as stating a fact about the electrochemistry in my brain consisting of love. So an opinion becomes to be be equated with a fact, as facts about electrochemical brainchemistry.

You've got no efficient way to distinguish fact from opinion, eventhough you say you do. I presented the entire creationist conceptual scheme, with all terms defined. You present say so that you can distinguish fact from opinion, while in the mean time.....social darwinism, post-modernism, materialism etc.

 

[psychoslice]

A fact is a fact, its proven, an opinion is an opinion, its just your own thoughts about whatever, when you have proven your opinion, it becomes a fact, its easy nothing hard about it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A fact is a fact, its proven, an opinion is an opinion, its just your own thoughts about whatever, when you have proven your opinion, it becomes a fact, its easy nothing hard about it.

Creationist philosophy says it is false. You can never establish as fact for instance that the love in marriage is real as fact. Not by hopping and jumping around with the corners of the mouth turned upward, not by saying the words that they love each other. One can just judge afterwards that all the love in the marriage has been phony. Then one can rejudge the issue and say it was real again. All these are valid opinions in creationist philosophy.

Fact and opinion are simply totally different, each valid in their own right.

But one can make heterodox terms, terms which have a subjective element to it, and a factual element. But the subjective and objective elements will remain distinct within the term.

 

[psychoslice]

Creationist philosophy says it is false. You can never establish as fact for instance that the love in marriage is real as fact. Not by hopping and jumping around with the corners of the mouth turned upward, not by saying the words that they love each other. One can just judge afterwards that all the love in the marriage has been phony. Then one can rejudge the issue and say it was real again. All these are valid opinions in creationist philosophy.

Fact and opinion are simply totally different, each valid in their own right.

But one can make heterodox terms, terms which have a subjective element to it, and a factual element. But the subjective and objective elements will remain distinct within the term.

The love in marriage is emotion, this feeling we call love is evident in most people, and we call that feeling love, and that is a fact, now something we can measure and see the same outcome over and over, is a established fact. A man in the sky magically making everything pop into existence is not a fact, the love for this man in the sky and the belief that he exist is a fact, but that fact doesn't make it so.

 

[Blastcat]

Actually you do need that. Only with creationism can you distinguish fact from opinion.

Explain?