Creationist philosophy explained

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

You've got no working conceptual scheme. You have a set of independent commitments, and the overriding commitment is to fact, opinion be damned.

When love is fact, then all statements about what you like are statements of fact, not opinion. Your ideas don't work out obviously.

A man in the sky, obviously the existence of man on earth or in the sky would be a factual issue. But God the holy spirit, the name is defined in terms of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, same as love is defined also. And therefore the existence of God is a matter of opinion.

If religion had not emphasized God the creator, and God arbiter of the final judgement, which means emphasizing God choosing, and if religion had not focused on faith, then you would have had a point.

 

[Blastcat]

"When everything is a fact, then there is no problem to distinguish fact from opinion"

It's a fact that I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Explain?

The entire explanation of creationism is provided in post 3, 4 and 5. With pictures, 2 lists for the 2 categories, examples, overview etc.. The explanation has already been provided.

 

[Blastcat]

The entire explanation of creationism is provided in post 3, 4 and 5. With pictures, 2 lists for the 2 categories, examples, overview etc.. The explanation has already been provided.

never mind then

 

[psychoslice]

You've got no working conceptual scheme. You have a set of independent commitments, and the overriding commitment is to fact, opinion be damned.

When love is fact, then all statements about what you like are statements of fact, not opinion. Your ideas don't work out obviously.

A man in the sky, obviously the existence of man on earth or in the sky would be a factual issue. But God the holy spirit, the name is defined in terms of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, same as love is defined also. And therefore the existence of God is a matter of opinion.

If religion had not emphasized God the creator, and Got arbiter of the final judgement, which means emphasizing God choosing, and if religion had not focused on faith, then you would have had a point.

I think you are making some big thing out of nothing, as I said a fact is a measurement that is proven to be right over and over, and so is an established fact, God and all beliefs pertaining to that are just that, beliefs, there is no substance in them, their just your feelings towards you belief, and no matter how these feelings feel, there not facts until proven too real, there is no getting out of it, you will never win a philosophical argument with just feeling.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think you are making some big thing out of nothing, as I said a fact is a measurement that is proven to be right over and over, and so is an established fact, God and all beliefs pertaining to that are just that, beliefs, there is no substance in them, their just your feelings towards you belief, and no matter how these feelings feel, there not facts until proven too real, there is no getting out of it, you will never win a philosophical argument with just feeling.

So you are saying feelings should be rejected because feelings are not evidence. So if I am feeling happy, then this feeling should be rejected because of it being a feeling. This happiness is not substance.

You obviously provide no room for subjectivity, you only provide room for objectivity, for facts.

 

[psychoslice]

So you are saying feelings should be rejected because feelings are not evidence. So if I am feeling happy, then this feeling should be rejected because of it being a feeling. This happiness is not substance.

You obviously provide no room for subjectivity, you only provide room for objectivity, for facts.

Yes that is what I am saying, we all have feelings about whatever, my feelings about lets say, a flower, might be different than your feelings about the same flower. Emotions are generated within each one of us based on our conditioning and programming, your culture maybe different than mine, and maybe no use to be personally, but to you it mat mean everything, there is no right or wrong, therefore there is no argument.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes that is what I am saying, we all have feelings about whatever, my feelings about lets say, a flower, might be different than your feelings about the same flower. Emotions are generated within each one of us based on our conditioning and programming, your culture maybe different than mine, and maybe no use to be personally, but to you it mat mean everything, there is no right or wrong, therefore there is no argument.

Saying programming and conditioning is obviously freedom denial, which always accompanies rejection of the validity of subjectivity. And previously you turned opinion into fact.

If you want to contest creationism, then you need to actually offer a complete conceptual scheme where opinion and fact fit. But as it is, you argue yourself into a jam every time, and the only time you make sense is in so far as your argument is in accordance with creationism.

You've got no chance, creationism is simply true. You are betting against religion being right about how subjectivity works. That is their core business.

 

[psychoslice]

Saying programming and conditioning is obviously freedom denial, which always accompanies rejection of the validity of subjectivity. And previously you turned opinion into fact.

If you want to contest creationism, then you need to actually offer a complete conceptual scheme where opinion and fact fit. But as it is, you argue yourself into a jam every time, and the only time you make sense is in so far as your argument is in accordance with creationism.

You've got no chance, creationism is simply true. You are betting against religion being right about how subjectivity works. That is their core business.

Listen, you have made up your mind, and opinion, there is nothing that will ever change that, so keep your opinion, its not worth arguing over, and it certainly isn't philosophy, that's for sure.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Listen, you have made up your mind, and opinion, there is nothing that will ever change that, so keep your opinion, its not worth arguing over, and it certainly isn't philosophy, that's for sure.

This organizing of terms in a conceptual scheme is what philosophy is about. Post modernism, materialism, social darwinism are also conceptual schemes. They just don't work, while creationism works practically, and is already taught in school to some extent, in teaching the difference between fact and opinion.

....checkmate evolutionist.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The op has made this argument so many times. He can't seem to distinguish the difference between "It is a fact that your opinion is" and "your opinion is a fact". In creationism facts and opinion are flipped from what they really are. The opinion that god exists is somehow fact but the evidence supported facts of evolution are merely opinion. Then it is shifted around by attempting to discredit certain philosophies and then tach them onto science without supporting arguments.

Its similar to the old argument where someone would bring up racism and argue that its wrong. Everyone agrees. Then they would somehow try to tie in racism to evolution and make evolution morally wrong. However it fails because evolution isn't racist and its a false premise. Much in the same way postmodernism and materialism aren't actually important or relevant in science yet he attempts to take his arguments against them and tach them onto science.

 

[psychoslice]

This organizing of terms in a conceptual scheme is what philosophy is about. Post modernism, materialism, social darwinism are also conceptual schemes. They just don't work, while creationism works practically, and is already taught in school to some extent, in teaching the difference between fact and opinion.

....checkmate evolutionist.

Thats your opinion, and that is all it will ever be, fact is not an opioion, can't you get that into your head ?.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In creationism facts and opinion are flipped from what they really are. The opinion that god exists is somehow fact

It's inaccurate. As you can see in post #5, God belongs to the creator category, and the existence of all in the creator category is a matter of opinion.

Creator
Chooses
existence is a matter of opinion
an opinion is formed by choosing, expression of emotion with free will
Also called spiritual 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.
Also called universe, or material domain.
For example; Planets and stars, organisms, fantasyfigures, mathematics, language

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thats your opinion, and that is all it will ever be, fact is not an opioion, can't you get that into your head ?.

Creationism is not an opinion, it's a fact. The fact may be wrong, like any fact may be wrong, but we are dealing with an objective issue.

 

[psychoslice]

Creationism is not an opinion, it's a fact. The fact may be wrong, like any fact may be wrong, but we are dealing with an objective issue.

Creationism is not a fact, it hasn't been proven to become a fact, the objective is that all became what it is through evolution which in many way is a fact, much more so than anything that creationism has ever shown.

 

[Neo Deist]

God is the Creator. As a deist, I believe in that concept.

But I also believe that God created the laws of nature, and everything runs accordingly. God does not need to steer the ship, so to speak. The seeds were planted, designed natural law took over, and things evolved over billions of years.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

God is the Creator. As a deist, I believe in that concept.

But I also believe that God created the laws of nature, and everything runs accordingly. God does not need to steer the ship, so to speak. The seeds were planted, designed natural law took over, and things evolved over billions of years.

You don't understand, creationist philosophy validates ordinary subjectivity like saying the painting is beautiful, as well as belief in God.

That is mostly what creationism vs evolution is about, people for subjectivity and people against it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationism is not a fact, it hasn't been proven to become a fact, the objective is that all became what it is through evolution which in many way is a fact, much more so than anything that creationism has ever shown.

It's not irrelevant, the decisions your parents made, by which yoy came to be. Real origins of anything can only be described in terms of the decisions by which it came to be, it is the mechanism of creation.

 

[Neo Deist]

You don't understand, creationist philosophy validates ordinary subjectivity like saying the painting is beautiful, as well as belief in God.

That is mostly what creationism vs evolution is about, people for subjectivity and people against it.

I am well aware of both creationist and evolutionist philosophies. I am also aware that neither can be proven and therefore they don't validate anything. They are nothing more than theories. and those theories are subject to interpretation and speculation.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's inaccurate. As you can see in post #5, God belongs to the creator category, and the existence of all in the creator category is a matter of opinion.

Creator
Chooses
existence is a matter of opinion
an opinion is formed by choosing, expression of emotion with free will
Also called spiritual 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.
Also called universe, or material domain.
For example; Planets and stars, organisms, fantasyfigures, mathematics, language

So the creator is an existence based on opinion? Who chooses to hold that opinion?