Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Now this does NOT in any way actually support the idea of an all powerful god figure that has total control of the universe with his master soul and will. That is purely a faith assumption.

No you are not really addressing what I am saying still.

Yes it is pure faith, the concept of free will shows that only opinion applies to reach a conclusion about what it is that chooses. Pure faith is a form of opinion, therefore it applies. That means the opinion that God and the soul are real applies, but also the opinion that God and the soul are not real applies. Because the logical validity of an opinion depends upon that the conclusion is chosen, and choosing requires alternatives.

But what evolutionists and nazi's do, is to say that facts apply to the issue of what it is that chooses.

The nazi's conceived of it that the spirit of people, what it is that chooses, is measurable and heritable. Thereby they calculated the worth of people as fact. Logicwise there is no room for any emotion whatsoever in nazism, because they made the issue of what it is that chooses into a matter of fact, and that is the foundation of all subjectivity.

Ofcourse in reality nazi's had freedom, and were subjective, but their ideology does not provide any room for it.

You can also see that nazi's conceived of it that people acted in a predetermined way, forced by their genes. As a matter of logic these 2 things always come together, make the worth of things a matter of fact, and deny freedom is real. Choosing becomes to be redefined as sorting out an optimal result. Choices then can only turn out the optimal way, not any other way, so choosing get's to have a logic of being forced. The sortingcriteria for the optimal are then the knowledge of good and evil, the facts about what things are worth.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

 

[Midnight Rain]

No you are not really addressing what I am saying still.

Yes it is pure faith, the concept of free will shows that only opinion applies to reach a conclusion about what it is that chooses. Pure faith is a form of opinion, therefore it applies. That means the opinion that God and the soul are real applies, but also the opinion that God and the soul are not real applies. Because the logical validity of an opinion depends upon that the conclusion is chosen, and choosing requires alternatives.

Does not follow. We have free will but that does not mean that we don't have determining factors at play. And the fact that we have free will does not mean that logically we have a god. And if we did it wouldn't tell us anything about that god.

Lastly the validity of an opinion depends upon its accuracy to the real world which is usually determined by evidence that can be obtained and shared objectively.

But what evolutionists and nazi's do, is to say that facts apply to the issue of what it is that chooses.

The nazi's conceived of it that the spirit of people, what it is that chooses, is measurable and heritable. Thereby they calculated the worth of people as fact. Logicwise there is no room for any emotion whatsoever in nazism, because they made the issue of what it is that chooses into a matter of fact, and that is the foundation of all subjectivity.

Ofcourse in reality nazi's had freedom, and were subjective, but their ideology does not provide any room for it.

You can also see that nazi's conceived of it that people acted in a predetermined way, forced by their genes. As a matter of logic these 2 things always come together, make the worth of things a matter of fact, and deny freedom is real. Choosing becomes to be redefined as sorting out an optimal result. Choices then can only turn out the optimal way, not any other way, so choosing get's to have a logic of being forced. The sortingcriteria for the optimal are then the knowledge of good and evil, the facts about what things are worth.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

Evolution and NAZI philosophy are not interchangeable. In fact they aren't even comparable. Firstly NAZI-ism is a philosophy that makes claims about how things "should be" based on racist tendencies and a false sense of superiority. Evolution however is a scientific study that makes no claims on how anything "should be" but simply help explain biology.

Evolution does not take away free will. Nothing in evolution allows us to quantify the worth of a human life. Nothing in evolution tells us that we can know right from wrong by fact. We have ethics which are arrived conclusions of logic based upon our own reflections but not evolution.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Does not follow. We have free will but that does not mean that we don't have determining factors at play. And the fact that we have free will does not mean that logically we have a god. And if we did it wouldn't tell us anything about that god.

Lastly the validity of an opinion depends upon its accuracy to the real world which is usually determined by evidence that can be obtained and shared objectively.

That is ofcourse blatantly and obviously the rules for fact, not opinion. A fact must be accurate, a fact must be an accurate and exhaustive copy of something.

Evolution and NAZI philosophy are not interchangeable. In fact they aren't even comparable. Firstly NAZI-ism is a philosophy that makes claims about how things "should be" based on racist tendencies and a false sense of superiority. Evolution however is a scientific study that makes no claims on how anything "should be" but simply help explain biology.

But since you just previously confused the rules for fact with the rules for opinion, it is equally confusing the rules about what should with the rules for what is.

Evolution does not take away free will. Nothing in evolution allows us to quantify the worth of a human life. Nothing in evolution tells us that we can know right from wrong by fact. We have ethics which are arrived conclusions of logic based upon our own reflections but not evolution.

The fact is that evolutionists make the issue of what it is that chooses into a matter of fact, and this is what makes evolution theory into pseudoscientific social darwinism.

You are unresponsive once again to my argumentation. To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

 

[Midnight Rain]

That is ofcourse blatantly and obviously the rules for fact, not opinion. A fact must be accurate, a fact must be an accurate and exhaustive copy of something.

A validated opinion is a fact. Or at least can be held with the same credibility. Otherwise its simply an opinion and you can't argue against an opinion. If it is your opinion that red is the best color then I can't really do anything against that. However if you claim that red is the universally and objectively best color then we need to get into why.

But since you just previously confused the rules for fact with the rules for opinion, it is equally confusing the rules about what should with the rules for what is.

Rules for fact need to be validated. However rules for opinions (generally varies greatly between individuals and societies) are ruled by ethics which are agreed upon by the population. Typically to assume the role as the source of pragmatism when dealing with these issues.

What is "good" and "bad" cannot be determined beyond opinion. But what is "lawful" and "illegal" can be. What is "ethical" and what is "not ethical" can be determined.

The fact is that evolutionists make the issue of what it is that chooses into a matter of fact, and this is what makes evolution theory into pseudoscientific social darwinism.

You are unresponsive once again to my argumentation. To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

I think you are claiming something about evolution that isn't true. What choice is dictated by "facts" according to evolution rather than any other source?

And evolution works best for what it does. Which is tell us about the nature of biology and to an extent the history of our planet.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A validated opinion is a fact.

Then an ought is an is. Nonsense.

I think you are claiming something about evolution that isn't true. What choice is dictated by "facts" according to evolution rather than any other source?

And evolution works best for what it does. Which is tell us about the nature of biology and to an extent the history of our planet.

What I see in practise however of evolution theory is a lot of atheists on religious forums whose spirit is sardonic, sarcastic, vile etc.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Then an ought is an is. Nonsense.

No it is not. Your opinion is that red is the best color. It is your opinion that red looks good on yourself. You want to look good. Then you ought to wear read. Based upon an opinion but not a fact.

One "ought not" murder someone. Why? Because we have determined we "ought not" because of our pragmatic ethics, law and moral systems. Why? We can logically deduce why it is that murder is wrong based upon the fact that we all want to survive. However it is not an objective fact that one "ought not" murder. Especially since there are so many exceptions to it. However it is pragmatically accepted that one "ought not" murder as that allows for a more functional society.

What I see in practise however of evolution theory is a lot of atheists on religious forums whose spirit is sardonic, sarcastic, vile etc.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

I haven't had that experience with Atheists so far on this site. They seem to be likeable people for the most part. So your "opinion' is not validated on that and it doesn't determine what we "ought" or "ought not" do about atheism or what atheists should do.

What works best is pragmatic solutions to make everyone happy. There are fundamental reasons behind what works and those need to be understood. However there is no embraced determinism in a pragmatic society in terms of taking responsibility for the actions one is accountable for. Inversely however if we go off of what we "feel" purely by emotions then we will get things wrong. Our emotions come from a portion of our brain that is less sophisticated than our frontal cortex which deals with logic.

So we cannot simply ignore our emotions but we do need to find the facts that can be found. Neither of your proposed options are perfectly viable. Its impractical to take a deterministic (which I think is what you mean when you say evolutionary approach) to society and laws but it is also highly impractical to throw out that knowledge we have gained in favor of an emotional run opinion based system.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it is not. Your opinion is that red is the best color. It is your opinion that red looks good on yourself. You want to look good. Then you ought to wear read. Based upon an opinion but not a fact.

One "ought not" murder someone. Why? Because we have determined we "ought not" because of our pragmatic ethics, law and moral systems. Why? We can logically deduce why it is that murder is wrong based upon the fact that we all want to survive. However it is not an objective fact that one "ought not" murder. Especially since there are so many exceptions to it. However it is pragmatically accepted that one "ought not" murder as that allows for a more functional society.



I haven't had that experience with Atheists so far on this site. They seem to be likeable people for the most part. So your "opinion' is not validated on that and it doesn't determine what we "ought" or "ought not" do about atheism or what atheists should do.

What works best is pragmatic solutions to make everyone happy. There are fundamental reasons behind what works and those need to be understood. However there is no embraced determinism in a pragmatic society in terms of taking responsibility for the actions one is accountable for. Inversely however if we go off of what we "feel" purely by emotions then we will get things wrong. Our emotions come from a portion of our brain that is less sophisticated than our frontal cortex which deals with logic.

So we cannot simply ignore our emotions but we do need to find the facts that can be found. Neither of your proposed options are perfectly viable. Its impractical to take a deterministic (which I think is what you mean when you say evolutionary approach) to society and laws but it is also highly impractical to throw out that knowledge we have gained in favor of an emotional run opinion based system.

I do not say that all facts must be thrown out the window, I am just saying that this particular issue of what it is that chooses, is categoricaly a matter of opinion, the foundation of all subjectivity.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I do not say that all facts must be thrown out the window, I am just saying that this particular issue of what it is that chooses, is categoricaly a matter of opinion, the foundation of all subjectivity.

To actually address my argumentation you have to consider which works best, to make the issue of what it is that chooses a matter of fact issue, or to make it a matter of opinion issue.

Can we measure it and obtain a fact like evolutionists say, or can we only express our emotions and form an opinion like creationists say?

And I have addressed this and said that it must be done pragmatically where facts and fundamental causes must be taken into consideration but at the same time hold people where they are accountable. It cannot be said of a blanket statement as it is highly dependent upon the situation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And I have addressed this and said that it must be done pragmatically where facts and fundamental causes must be taken into consideration but at the same time hold people where they are accountable. It cannot be said of a blanket statement as it is highly dependent upon the situation.

It can be said as a blanket statement because logic dictates that it is a matter of opinion exclusively. What chooses is free, as per definition, because it chooses. Facts can only be obtained by force, evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a fact. Freedom excludes force, including the force of evidence, therefore facts cannot apply to what it is that chooses.

You have to demonstrate how the logic of having alternative courses of action available, is consistent with making it, partially, a fact what it is that chooses. Because if you say that what it is that chooses is in fact X, as can be measured, then it seems to me that then the result of any decision can only follow from what X consists of, and then the decision cannot turn out any alternative way.

Also, you have made everything else into a matter of fact, and now this last issue you have made partially a matter of fact. Ofcourse this provides no validation for opinion, to make it partial fact and opinion, it means fact and opinion are rolled into one, in a confusion. It means you cannot clearly distinghuish fact from opinion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It can be said as a blanket statement because logic dictates that it is a matter of opinion exclusively. What chooses is free, as per definition, because it chooses. Facts can only be obtained by force, evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a fact. Freedom excludes force, including the force of evidence, therefore facts cannot apply to what it is that chooses.

You have to demonstrate how the logic of having alternative courses of action available, is consistent with making it, partially, a fact what it is that chooses. Because if you say that what it is that chooses is in fact X, as can be measured, then it seems to me that then the result of any decision can only follow from what X consists of, and then the decision cannot turn out any alternative way.

Also, you have made everything else into a matter of fact, and now this last issue you have made partially a matter of fact. Ofcourse this provides no validation for opinion, to make it partial fact and opinion, it means fact and opinion are rolled into one, in a confusion. It means you cannot clearly distinghuish fact from opinion.

What color shirt you wear is a pure opinion. Perhaps you have pre-cognitive sway towards a particular color because of a previous memory or instinct of some kind but it is your choice what shirt you wear.

But there are reasons behind everything we do. Are you trying to say there is not? What is an example of an opinion in your view that "evolutionists" see as a fact? Something specific.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What color shirt you wear is a pure opinion. Perhaps you have pre-cognitive sway towards a particular color because of a previous memory or instinct of some kind but it is your choice what shirt you wear.

But there are reasons behind everything we do. Are you trying to say there is not? What is an example of an opinion in your view that "evolutionists" see as a fact? Something specific.

Love and hate are very obvious and valid reasons. To reach the conclusion love and hate are real by choosing it, does not diminish it as a reason.

You say you can obtain facts about what it is that chooses, then demonstrate it.

What you are really doing is pointing out some aspects of human behaviour which are predetermined, then calling this forced behaviour a "decision". And then to pretend that you accept subjectivity, you arbitrarily throw in some "opinion" in there as well, but it does not make any sense, it is just a jumbled mess, and you are always back to the forced behaviour, the measurable factors, and never actually address the opinion part.

You pretend you follow evidence for your hypothesis, but your hypothesis does not make any sense to begin with. A decision with a forced result, is bogus, it is a square circle. Then you go look for forced "decisions" and yes you find that some aspects of human behaviour are indeed forced, and therefore you conclude that decisions are forced. And you can measure the factors that determine the "decision", so hey, you don't need any opinion to describe a "decision".

All opinion is based on the logic of choosing about what it is that chooses.