Creationist philosophy

Creationist philosophy is the barebone underlaying logic of the religious creation theories, without specific reference to who created what when. Actually 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.

Creationist philosophy is the best, because unlike any other philosophy it provides full accommodation for “opinion”. Other philosophies, like materialism, are really only suited for “fact”, and “opinion” is then arbitrarily squeezed in somewhere it doesn’t really fit.

I made a little homework project of it on the website:
creationistischreveil.nl/creationism

So what creationist philosophy does it to divide all reality into 2 parts, creator and creation, where opinion is relevant to the creator category, and fact is relevant to the creation category. So first I will explain the creationist view of “fact” and “opinion”, which is supposed to be the same as the common discourse understanding of these words.

Explanation of “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.

Explanation of “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 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.

Explanation of Creationism:

How fact and opinion fit together in 1 conceptual scheme.

There are two categories in creationism, creator and creation.

Category 1: Creator
What is in this category chooses.
The existence of all what is in this category 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, good and evil.

Category 2: Creation
What is in this category is chosen.
The existence of all that is in this category 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.

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

Example 1:
The planet Venus

[img]http://creationistischreveil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/venus-correct-size-th.png/[img]

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.

Example 2:
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

click to see image

creationistischreveil.nl/wp-cont … erview.png

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.

Creation science:

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.

Mathematics is the the theory of everything in the material domain.

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.

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

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.

For the sake of clarity, following are some definitions of terms used.

Definitions

Choice / decision = To make an alternative future the present, or, to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present, or not.

Spirit / agency = That which makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Subjectivity = To choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion on what it is.

Objectivity = To make a model of something forced by evidence, resulting in a fact.

Having issues understanding creationist philosophy:

If you read this posting and you are basically drawing a complete blank on understanding what is written, then the issue you are having in understanding it is very, very, probably caused by the definition of the word decision that you are using.

Everywhere in society the message is hammered home to do your best. Whether it is government, school, parents, your own ideals, the pressure to do your best is enormous. This pressure can lead to defining choosing in terms of sorting out the best result, where the facts about good and evil are used to sort out a course of action.
But that doesn’t work as a fundamental definition of choosing, because then the result of the decision is FORCED by the facts about good and evil, which means that then a decision could not turn out several different ways. It is basically like a chesscomputer calculating the next move.

To do your best means to first choose about what is good, by expression of emotion with free will, which then results in an opinion, and then you can use that opinion to sort out a course of action. Only the original forming of the opinion is the act of choosing, the consequent sorting is not choosing.

For example, first one decides one likes to get to the top of the mountain, consequently the options are sorted in terms of that opinion, meaning that all the options which contribute to going to the top of the mountain are good, and all the options which lead away from the top are bad.

Essentially the goodness or evil of any decision is not in the result of the decision, but in the agency of a decision, which makes the decision turn out the way it does.

People are extremely insistent on defining choosing in terms of sorting out the best result. Also because that when choosing is defined in such a way, it means that anytime you make a choice then you did the best by definition. Think about it, if choosing means to sort out the best result, then when you have made a choice, the definition of choosing says that you did the best. Then your ego is boosted, drugs are released in the brain, the way of thinking is highly addictive.

So if you don’t understand creationist philosophy, then you should spend a lot of time considering the definition of choosing that you use. Experience tells me that in 100 percent of cases this is the problem in failing to comprehend creationist philosophy.

Creation would have occurred and then changed due to causality. Unless it is too constantly changing, then that’s not really creation. At least you would expect God to not require adaptation of his creation.

The creationist view of cause and effect is situational. Cause and effect belong together as 1 thing, so there are no causes without effects, or effects without causes. So the universe starts by choice, by which choice comes to be a cause with it’s accompany effect. The universe does not start as an effect of some cause outside the universe.

Then still there is freedom in the universe, and new things are created. So creationist philosophy does not just refer to creation of the universe, but to any creation, including creation by people.

For the creation of organisms there is socalled DNA worlds theory. This theory is speculation based on the finding that the mathematical structure of biology is the same as that of physics. That similarity suggests that the DNA system is a world in it’s own right, same as human imagination and a 3D comptergame are worlds in their own right.

In this DNA world forms are chosen in an intelligent way. Then this form in the DNA world guides the development of the physical organism to adulthood.

We can see by the existence of human imagination that it is possible for such worlds in their own right to exist in nature.

What I find very convincing about DNA worlds theory is that I just can’t fathom how development of an organism to adulthood can occur without a representation of the finished products. And once you admit that development needs a representation of the finished product to guide it, then it is strongly suggested that there exists a DNA world.

Evolution theory does not really have a theory of development to adulthood. There used to be an evolution theory of development which states that development to adulthood repeats the evolutionary history of the creature. So each stage in development is similar to a creature that existed long ago in it’s lineage. But that theory has been discredited as wrong.

So now evolution theory basically describes development in terms of a jumbled mess of instructions being executed without any guidance. I don’t find it very convincing of course.

If you are interested, I see a few issues in the OP or in “Creationist Philosophy” / “Creation Ontology”.

• First, a minor issue: You seem to conflate “fact” with “truth”. Truth involves statements about portions of reality. Facts are not the statements, but rather the portions of reality that the statements are about. The fact is the actual event, not the documentation of it. When someone says, “I want to know the facts”, he is not saying that he wants to know the statements about what happened, but rather that he wants to know the reality of what happened, generally conveyed via truthful statements, although physical demonstration would often do even better.

Often people use the word “fact” to indicate a well documented and proven to be true happening in reality, as opposed to merely a largely believed to be true thought of a happening.

• You seem to identify a “chooser”/“decision maker” as a creator, one who causes a creation and also as one with opinions as a chooser. An opinion is a different thing from a decision. An opinion is a belief, generally regarded as not well founded, although might or might not be perfectly accurate. All opinions are NOT of equal strength or importance. There are “educated opinions” and “naive opinions”, for example. The one doing the choosing might be of any category of opinion or possibly have no belief/opinion at all, and merely flips a coin.

If the creator of ALL things is to have opinions, of what subject are such opinions? There would be nothing to have opinions/beliefs about before there was any existence. One cannot choose between two options if there is nothing there to be choosing between. And if you think the creator is choosing between “possibilities”, realize that there is no possibility of anything until the choice is already made. Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

Light travels at that particular speed because it is truly impossible for it to travel at any other speed.

No facts are basically models. The police wanting to know the facts about the murder, then is meant a 1 to 1 corresponding model of what happened.
Truth are about important facts, where the importance of it, is a matter of opinion. And even one can leave fact out altogether from truth, for example saying love is the truth, meaning love is important, which is all opinion.

A guess, or speculation, they are subcategories of fact, where there is little or no evidence. People contrast guesses with properly evidenced facts.

Opinions have nothing to do with accuracy. Proper opinons are expressions of emotion. You confuse opinions with guesses.

Opinions are just 1 created thing, organisms are another created thing, planets another created thing.

The pivotal issue is the definition of the word decision. In creationism this is defined as making an alternative future the present, or to make a possibility, which is in the future, the present or not. So choosing is anticipatory. If someone chooses between going left or right, then I am not saying there exists 3 objects a man now, a man in the future going left, and a man in the future going right. There exists a man in the present, and there exists possibilities in the future of that object. These possibilities consist of stuff, just not the same stuff that is present. We can just describe with mathematics what these possibilities consist of, same as we can describe with mathematics what the present object consists of. Then with a decision one of the possibilities is added to the object.

In the sense of ‘belonging to one thing’, cause and effect belongs to Einstein’s ‘all-time’ in an infinite universe, and there naturally wouldn’t be a beginning to that because it all exists at once. Now factor in improbability and QM with the denumerable amounts of potentiality in any moment, and there is no way to tie that all together in a single string. Not to mention that it would be horrible, machine-like, and a complete exercise in futility.
If there were a choice its exponent would instantly become improbable and varied. Causality isn’t a single chain of events, you get different epicentres occurring all the time and everywhere in the universe. They are all crossing, bypassing. merging or counteracting one another, this is what physics shows us how energy works.

True.

The first cause with it’s accompany effect would obviously constitute the beginning of the universe. And this first choice has lots of freedom. After the first choice is made, then possibilities around what has already been chosen become more likely.

Infinities are a trivial matter. The vanishing point in perspective is an infinity. Infinities are just one more of many aspects of the universe, of no more fundamental significance than any other mathematical description.

Only when theory of causality is combined with theory about choosing, is there no single chain of events. Without choosing, when you only have cause and effect to work with, then there must be a single chain of cause and effect. A choice can bring a cause and effect into existence. Without choosing, you must refer to another cause and effect to bring the cause and effect you are looking at into existence, you end up with 1 chain of cause and effect.

Cause and effect is mostly demonstrated by the principle that an action has an equal and opposite reaction. That shows cause and effect must provide a totality of 0. So then if one chooses something which is not a totality of zero, then the universe responds with a reaction that makes the totality 0. And if one chooses something that has a totality of zero, then the reaction of the universe is 0. Creatio ex nihilo, and ex nihilo nihil fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

Which all just demonstrates one can make creation theory which corresponds 1 to 1 with the way the universe operates. It is certainly no worse than multiverse or string theory for accuracy and evidence. Creation theory is certainly much better than the other theories for describing human behaviour, people choosing.

But the most excellent feature of creationist philosophy is actually outside of science, “opinion” is a creationist concept. With creationist philosophy one can say the earth is beautiful, or ugly.

Interesting notion! [in red] The first choice has lots of freedom? It has to make the universe in its infinite state manifest first. The first cause, if a single instance, would be that and can’t become anything else until after ‘it’ [God, nature, dunno] has manifest the infinite. that’s if its not all cyclic which I think it is.

It is more likely that the whole thing is self contained in a kind of ‘all-time bubble’, which expands between an infinite state, and the universe as we see it now, then I don’t know what happens in the end lol. I can imagine there will be a simple process between two contrasting states namely infinite and quantum/finite.

Perhaps we shouldn’t associate God with a creation point, but with a creation whole. If God/spirit is in some sense outside the whole system [as we kinda are], then how the two interact will always be a mystery and we wont find it by looking at objects/causality imho.

No the ‘vanishing point in perspective’ is an imaginary point. An infinite universe is physically infinite in some sense, and must expand to the whole – of reality. We cannot say that reality is less than it.

A choice is itself causal or not part of causality – naturally.

Two different things.

No it shows that Newton’s third law of motion means that energy values total 0 when balanced. It may mean that infinity also = 0, but the universe and hence cause and effect are values relative to the differences [information/patterns] and not the overall totality.

0 contains infinite potential and contains all-time.

You don’t ever get nothing when there does exist something it impossible, the whole thing is a loop, that’s what all-time means – the whole of things in time. It moves between 0[∞] and expands until the end, when it reverts to being infinite and the whole cycle starts again.

_

There was no “first cause”. Rather there is a “First Principle” (as in “most fundamental”).

The First Principle is that objects cannot be inside of other objects. Objects move from Hight Pressure to Low Pressure.

Can existence be anything different? Well if objects could be inside of other objects, that would result in information loss, and all would collapse into a single unified atom, resulting in information loss.

But you can have an action and a reaction which total 0, so it means you can have nothing be something.

History is the sequence of decisions made.

With choosing the possibility precedes the decision, or the possibility and the decision on it, are one thing. What is possible is defined by mathematics. Some aspects in the universe are certainly incedental, like what choices people made, but maybe also some more fundamental aspects are incedental, and could have turned out differently. So mathematics is the theory of everything, and then there is history of what has been chosen.

But again, this is only to demonstrate the workability of creationist philosophy in science. The most important aspect of creationist philosophy is that it validates subjectivity. “Opinion” is a creationist concept. One cannot say what is beautiful or ugly without using creationist philosophy.

A fact is not merely a copy. A copy can be defect or faked … and so on.