Creationism: What is subjective, creates what is objective, by decision.
subjective = identified with a chosen opinion
objective = identified with a model of it
Examples:
The baby (objective), was born from love (subjective).
God (subjective), created the earth (objective).
So it means you can also choose the opinion that this love and God aren’t there, and it would be an equally valid opinion to saying they are there. It is fact that there were the possibilities available of the baby and the earth coming to be, or them not coming to be, and the decision turned out that they came to be. And then you just express chosen opinions in order to identify the decision-maker for these events. As being a decision-maker yourself, you relate to the decision that you want to express an opinion about, and feel in what spirit the decision was made, and then express those feelings with free will, choosing a subjective opinion on the issue.
The chosen subjective opinion would generally always be valid, but it would be a category error to assert anything objective doing the deciding. So you can’t choose objective things, in choosing a subjective opinion. Some subjective terminology may also have some objective aspects to them as preconditions to use them. For instance there can be a rule that emotions only apply when a certain objective criterium for organization of decision-making processes has been met.
Forced opinions, like to be forced to say a painting is beautiful, tend to be invalid, because of the opinion not being chosen.
The logic of fact is modelling, which doesn’t need much of any explanation.
The logic of creationism can only function if choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, meaning that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment that the decision is made. As opposed to selection, which is like how a chesscomputer may calculate a move.
Basically creationism is just the concept of choosing writ large, over reality in it’s entirety. Everything in the universe is possible, it could be or not be, and the decision turned out that it came to be. So then administratively speaking, there is the subjective part of reality, from which is chosen how the objective part of reality turns out.
I asked the Grok AI about it, and it classified creationism as “ontological voluntarism”. Noticeably the Grok AI had a hard time accepting the validity of creationism, because it was constrained by it’s programming to matters of fact, so that it could not easily validate the concept of subjective opinion, which creationism requires. I suppose Grok represents the majority of academics, which likewise has a hard time accepting the validity of subjectivity in it’s own right. Which is of course catastrophic, that subjectivity would be marginalized.