Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Parsimony]

All wellknown evolutionist activists either deny free will of people is real, or give choosing a logic of being forced (compatibilism). And for the universe in general, any idea about freedom is generally absent. The concept of choosing that professional evolutionary biologists use is the same concept as used in artificial intelligence research. It is simply a routine for searching an optimal, a sorting mechanism with if else then logic gates. The result is forced by initial conditions. It is forced to turn out the way it does, there are no several ways in which it can turn out.

Free will is a philosophical/physiological issue, not an evolutionary one.

The only practically functional concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available is the creationist concept of it. The spirit chooses and it is a matter of opinion that the spirit exists. By making it a matter of opinion what it is that does the actual choosing,the freedom in the concept is held in tact. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a 1:1 descriptive model of what is evidenced. It is obvious that if we introduce any kind of force in the concept in regards to what it is that chooses, including the force of evidence, that then the freedom in the concept is lost. That is how love and hate, beauty and ugliness, God, the soul, are all categorically matters of opinion, and wholly distinct from fact.

So God and the soul both exist and do not exist at the same time? There is not an objective quality to their existence or non-existence?

That is why universally people use creationist logic in common discourse, that it is a fact what decisions are made, but an opinion what the motivation of a decision, what emotions are in somebody's heart. The law and democracy are also based on creationist logic of choosing.

I don't know why you call it "creationist logic". The idea that free will exists is not unique to creationists.

And whenever the evolutionist idea of choosing is applied. it inevitably leads to societal disaster, because it provides no room whatsoever for subjectivity. This is how nazism with it's idea that people are predetermined by heredity, asserts as fact what the emotional disposition and worth of people is. When the evolutionist logic of being forced is used for the word choosing, then the motivation of the decision is the cause which forces the effect. And like any cause it can then simply be measured, so the emotions of people must be fact, and as worth is derived from emotions, worth is also a fact. It all becomes fact, and as by logic there is actually no room whatsoever for any opinion. That results in the typical coldhearted calculating nazi persona, which is obviously very similar to the stereotype of the coldhearted calculating scientist. The same sort of thing goes for communism and it's ideas of predetermined stages of evolutionary development of social order.

There is plenty of room for opinion.

 

[McBell]

I am an evolutionist that believes in free will.

Well, you are obviously not a "true" evolutionist...

 

[Midnight Rain]

Well, you are obviously not a "true" evolutionist...

Is that facetious? And I swear to goddess that I nearly broke my screen trying to kill your signature.

 

[McBell]

Is that facetious? And I swear to goddess that I nearly broke my screen trying to kill your signature.

nope.
sarcasm.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Free will is a philosophical/physiological issue, not an evolutionary one.

So God and the soul both exist and do not exist at the same time? There is not an objective quality to their existence or non-existence?

Why don't you be honest and look at the evidence of what evolutionists do. How many decisions do evolutionists acknowledge in the entire history of the universe at large? And how do evolutionists talk about animals, and people choosing? They acknowledge 0 decisions in the history, and they explain choosing in terms of sorting out an optimum.

If you look at the evidence it is very clear that evolutionists go out of their way to destroy both any knowledge about things being chosen, and subjectivity. Subjectivity being the prime target what evolutionists are against.

Yes the existence of God, the soul, love and hate is not objective in any way. And there is no problem with that, because we have subjectivity. To express the opinion that God is real, or that you love somebody, does not establish a fact that God or love is real, it establishes an opinion. All of what is said to choose is by definition a matter of opinion. The motivation of a decision, love and hate, God, the soul, they are all said to do the job of choosing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Once again, whom?
This is simply not true, there are a myriad of ways that it cann turn out, many completely unpredictable and unforseen.

And what is it then that decides the way it turns out?

It is bogus, you will just complexify the issue, and make it ambigious if it really can turn out many different ways.

 

[Parsimony]

Why don't you be honest and look at the evidence of what evolutionists do. How many decisions do evolutionists acknowledge in the entire history of the universe at large? And how do evolutionists talk about animals, and people choosing? They acknowledge 0 decisions in the history, and they explain choosing in terms of sorting out an optimum.

If you look at the evidence it is very clear that evolutionists go out of their way to destroy both any knowledge about things being chosen, and subjectivity. Subjectivity being the prime target what evolutionists are against.

Yes the existence of God, the soul, love and hate is not objective in any way. And there is no problem with that, because we have subjectivity. To express the opinion that God is real, or that you love somebody, does not establish a fact that God or love is real, it establishes an opinion. All of what is said to choose is by definition a matter of opinion. The motivation of a decision, love and hate, God, the soul, they are all said to do the job of choosing.

This whole "choosing" thing you are talking about is not something that I understand. I am an evolutionist and I acknowledge that there are many subjective things and opinions. Not everything is a matter of fact or fantasy.

So your stance is that God is not actually real, but simply believed to be real? God does not have an existence that is independent from human belief? Does this mean that He could not have existed prior to the existence of humans who were capable of believing in Him? I have to admit, I have never heard anyone with a belief set like this before.

 

[McBell]

Why don't you be honest ...

How about you start?

 

[Sapiens]

And what is it then that decides the way it turns out?

It is bogus, you will just complexify the issue, and make it ambigious if it really can turn out many different ways.

What is it that makes the river take a certain path? A combination of deterministic process like gravity combined with a number of processes with varying degrees of stochasticty. The universe is not as simple as a closed mind would have it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This whole "choosing" thing you are talking about is not something that I understand. I am an evolutionist and I acknowledge that there are many subjective things and opinions. Not everything is a matter of fact or fantasy.

So your stance is that God is not actually real, but simply believed to be real? God does not have an existence that is independent from human belief? Does this mean that He could not have existed prior to the existence of humans who were capable of believing in Him? I have to admit, I have never heard anyone with a belief set like this before.

Your interpretation of it is whack. It is the usual dishonesty of evolutionists, which is targeted to destroy subjectivity altogether. That means you try to make as whack an interpretation of it as possible, so as to discredit subjectivity.

.....it is standard religion. Which is well shown by that the human soul also cannot be evidenced to exist, and most religious people basically accept that, with a few exceptions. So you never heard that religious people accept the existence of the soul on faith? Why would this mean then that the human soul starts to exist once you believe in it? You can see that it is a whack interpretation, which is why you accept this interpretation.

 

[Parsimony]

Your interpretation of it is whack. It is the usual dishonesty of evolutionists, which is targeted to destroy subjectivity altogether. That means you try to make as whack an interpretation of it as possible, so as to discredit subjectivity.

.....it is standard religion. Which is well shown by that the human soul also cannot be evidenced to exist, and most religious people basically accept that, with a few exceptions. So you never heard that religious people accept the existence of the soul on faith? Why would this mean then that the human soul starts to exist once you believe in it? You can see that it is a whack interpretation, which is why you accept this interpretation.

If my interpretation of your stance is off, it's because I've failed to properly understand it. I don't know if it's the way you phrase things or what, but I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around your sentences. I've already told you that I accept that subjectivity exists so to think I'm trying to "discredit subjectivity" is wrong and perhaps you are misunderstanding me just as much as I am misunderstanding you. Do you think that the soul exists independently of belief? If it does, then I don't see what its existence has to do with belief or opinion. It either exists or it doesn't. Do you disagree that the soul either exists or does not? What other option is there?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is it that makes the river take a certain path? A combination of deterministic process like gravity combined with a number of processes with varying degrees of stochasticty. The universe is not as simple as a closed mind would have it.

No honesty..... You have no functional concept of choosing, you rejected the only functional concept of it. You complexified the issue, and made it ambiguous if it really can turn out many different ways.

If we cut all the unnecessary complexity, then supposedly somewhere in the stochasticy is the freedom. But stochasticy is commonly interpreted as chaotic and predetermined, not necessarily many ways it can turn out at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If my interpretation of your stance is off, it's because I've failed to properly understand it. I don't know if it's the way you phrase things or what, but I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around your sentences. I've already told you that I accept that subjectivity exists so to think I'm trying to "discredit subjectivity" is wrong and perhaps you are misunderstanding me just as much as I am misunderstanding you. Do you think that the soul exists independently of belief? If it does, then I don't see what its existence has to do with belief or opinion. It either exists or it doesn't. Do you disagree that the soul either exists or does not? What other option is there?

You are still not arguing towards a reasonable interpretation that is in line with common religion. You are still arguing toward a whack interpretation.

The spirit chooses, and it is a matter of opinion that it exists. An opinion is reached by expressing emotions, expressing of emotions can only be done with free will, free will is based on choosing, the answer whether or not the spirit exists is chosen from the available alternatives that it exists, and doesn't exist.

There is nothing in there about the existence of the spirit depending on the opinion that it does exist.

 

[Sapiens]

No honesty..... You have no functional concept of choosing, you rejected the only functional concept of it. You complexified the issue, and made it ambiguous if it really can turn out many different ways.

If we cut all the unnecessary complexity, then supposedly somewhere in the stochasticy is the freedom. But stochasticy is commonly interpreted as chaotic and predetermined, not necessarily many ways it can turn out at all.

I really don't care how it is commonly interpreted, it is an uncommon word. That, quite specifically, is why I use the term "stochasticity" as opposed to "luck" or "chance."

 

[Ouroboros]

What is it that makes the river take a certain path? A combination of deterministic process like gravity combined with a number of processes with varying degrees of stochasticty. The universe is not as simple as a closed mind would have it.

What! The river flows in different direction because of complete random chance!??! Impossible. The Ancient Holy Book I'm holding in my hands right now says that Xyrghot the Heavenly Emperor controls all water, so you must be wrong!!!11!!!

 

[Sapiens]

What! The river flows in different direction because of complete random chance!??! Impossible. The Ancient Holy Book I'm holding in my hands right now says that Xyrghot the Heavenly Emperor controls all water, so you must be wrong!!!11!!!

You have a mistranslation, it actually says, "Xyrghot, the Heavenly Emperor, holds his water."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I really don't care how it is commonly interpreted, it is an uncommon word. That, quite specifically, is why I use the term "stochasticity" as opposed to "luck" or "chance."

So what, it is still clouding the issue rather than confirming freedom is a reality. And this is all nonsense because you dismissed what I have verified to be the only practically functional concept of choosing. So the accusation that evolutionists destroy knowledge about choosing is justified.

To have a functional concept of freedom the alternatives must be posited in the future of the object, which alternative futures are anticipated, not the present or past. Then a decision is the act of adding one of the potential alternative values to the object in the present as an actual value.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What! The river flows in different direction because of complete random chance!??! Impossible. The Ancient Holy Book I'm holding in my hands right now says that Xyrghot the Heavenly Emperor controls all water, so you must be wrong!!!11!!!

See, another evolutionist who attacks knowledge about choosing, in this case with "complete random chance" which is a convoluted concept that nobody knows the meaning of.

 

[Sapiens]

So what, it is still clouding the issue rather than confirming freedom is a reality. And this is all nonsense because you dismissed what I have verified to be the only practically functional concept of choosing. So the accusation that evolutionists destroy knowledge about choosing is justified.

To have a functional concept of freedom the alternatives must be posited in the future of the object, which alternative futures are anticipated, not the present or past. Then a decision is the act of adding one of the potential alternative values to the object in the present as an actual value.

You have verified nothing. I suspect that you would not know freedom if it smacked you in the head, do keep in mind that true freedom includes the right to not choose and just let it flow.

 

[Sapiens]

See, another evolutionist who attacks knowledge about choosing, in this case with "complete random chance" which is a convoluted concept that nobody knows the meaning of.

This place is getting awful short on anything resembling a sense of humor. Time for the Ministry of Funny Walks and the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody ever expects the ...