Creationist philosophy explained

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

Obviously religious people. That's why it's called faith. Faith is a form of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

Except creationism explains what"opinion" is. Creationism fits "opinion" in a complete and functional conceptual scheme.

So when you say it is "opinion" which idea of opinion are you using?

You see that's the trouble with fundamental issues.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Obviously religious people. That's why it's called faith. Faith is a form of opinion.

And so if it is my opinion that god doesn't exist then he simply doesn't?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And so if it is my opinion that god doesn't exist then he simply doesn't?

Then it is your opinion God doesn't exist.

Somebody makes a decision, then it is a matter of opinion what it is that made the decision turn out the way it did.

And an opinion is arrived at by choosing, and you need at least 2 options to be able to choose, therefore there are at least 2 valid answers to the question.

Therefore to say something is beautiful is equally valid to say something is ugly, and it is equally valid to say God is real, as to say God is not real.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Then it is your opinion God doesn't exist.

Somebody makes a decision, then it is a matter of opinion what it is that made the decision turn out the way it did.

And an opinion is arrived at by choosing, and you need at least 2 options to be able to choose, therefore there are at least 2 valid answers to the question.

Therefore to say something is beautiful is equally valid to say something is ugly, and it is equally valid to say God is real, as to say God is not real.

Though if it is as equally valid to say that god isn't real doesn't that mean that its just as equally valid to say that creationism is not as well?

 

[Blastcat]

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.

I wonder what evolutionist you are imagining?

 

[David M]

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..

See this is where your ignorance really shows, if love"is doing the choosing" then the existence of love is a fact. By your own criteria it is a fact.

 

[Blastcat]

While creationist philosophy is derived from religion, it is not the case that creationist philosophy is religious.

IF you invoke a creator GOD.. it's kinda religious.

 

[Blastcat]

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.

ToE can't be proved?... Nothing more than theories?
Some people really don't care to investigate the science they want to deny.

 

[Blastcat]

Obviously religious people. That's why it's called faith. Faith is a form of opinion.

Well, you've made a great case for believing in anything you like. Go for it!
( You're already there ! )

 

[Neo Deist]

ToE can't be proved?... Nothing more than theories?
Some people really don't care to investigate the science they want to deny.

You mistake my intent...

I agree with ToE, it just can't be proven beyond any doubt at this moment in time. There is no "smoking gun" evidence as yet discovered. I am well aware of the fossil record, but there are dissenters even among the ranks of scientists that support the ToE. Until that smoking gun is found, I keep the ToE as just that; a theory. Albeit one I believe in without a doubt.

I do not agree with CT or YEC, as they are just flat out wrong, based on what science can show at this moment in time.

 

[Neo Deist]

Except creationism explains what"opinion" is. Creationism fits "opinion" in a complete and functional conceptual scheme.

So when you say it is "opinion" which idea of opinion are you using?

You see that's the trouble with fundamental issues.

No, creationism tells a story that is more fairy tale in nature, than factual. Every science on the planet refutes creationism. Wake up and smell the 21st century...

 

[Blastcat]

You mistake my intent...

I agree with ToE, it just can't be proven beyond any doubt at this moment in time.

There is ALWAYS room for "doubt" because we don't know absolutely everything , but when it comes to ToE, there is over 150 years of data confirming the theory. The theory explains nature, and is used to make accurate PREDICTIONS about nature. But of course, creationists prefer their religious ideas over any well established science. Indoctrination works wonders.

There is no "smoking gun" evidence as yet discovered. I am well aware of the fossil record, but there are dissenters even among the ranks of scientists that support the ToE. Until that smoking gun is found, I keep the ToE as just that; a theory. Albeit one I believe in without a doubt.

I don't know what you mean by "smoking gun". There are THOUSANDS of guns that are smoking enough for the real biologists.

I do not agree with CT or YEC, as they are just flat out wrong, based on what science can show at this moment in time.

So, you base some of your ideas about nature on science. Not on the science of ToE, but it's a start.
About only half of Americans believe in ToE. I'm pretty sure it's not because they have studied it, but because their preachers say it ain't so. Bible is better than science, right?