Creationism: the logic of fact and opinion

[syamsu]

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.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I don’t know Grok AI, but essentialism is creation towards the ontologically prior essence (greatest maximal possible world—the whole timeline)—co-created by both necessary and contingent beings subsumed in it. Like an eternal dialogue that began complete.

Voluntarism is a fallacy.

[syamsu]

It’s a fallacy to just assert a fallacy without demonstration.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

It’s a fallacy to just make stuff up & call it true.

I meant… ECHO echo …

[syamsu]

I don’t know what you are talking about.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Yeah, sure you don’t.

[anew1]

@syamsu

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

What even is God and love, exactly?

Until you know and explain what these things are, exactly, then sharing your own personal subjective opinions here is not really helpful.

[Nausamedu]

@syamsu

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.

If the premise is that its okay to choose when something can be neither proven or unproven, then sure, but even before that: Your choice is unalienable. That simply is.
Whether or not you can justify choosing the way you did… now thats an entirely different book altogether.

For everything else: Subjectivity is a matter of fact for all living beings.
There is reality, and then there is us. We perceive only what we can perceive thus a subjective interpretation of reality is born.

As the saying of three truths goes: There is yours, there is mine, and then there is the truth.

[anew1]

@Nausamedu

As the saying of three truths goes: There is yours, there is mine, and then there is the truth

What is the actual difference between “the three”?

To me, there is only the Truth. If a sound and valid argument or proof does not already exist for ‘your’ or ‘my’ so-called ‘truths’, then they are not the Truth at all.

Maybe you would like to provide some examples of what you believe are 'three truths".

[Nausamedu]

@anew1

What is the actual difference between “the three”?

I dont think it needs a deep explanation that we are not a hive mind, but different individuals with their own experiences and views on things.
As such there is you, and there is me.
There is how you see the world (your truth) and there is how i see the world (my truth).

As for the third:

@anew1

the Truth

Is noumenon.

This too requires not much explanation, afterall reality and your idea of reality are two separate things.

You are not omniscient that knows all, you are but a bundle of flesh with a bunch of creative interpretation organs for orienting yourself within reality, trying to construct frameworks in order to explain what you come into contact with.
Or in short: You do not know everything, so you also do not know “the truth”.

[anew1]

@Nausamedu

I dont think it needs a deep explanation that we are not a hive mind, but different individuals with their own experiences and views on things.

Are you open at all to what you believe is true here may not be true at all?

@Nausamedu

As such there is you, and there is me.
There is how you see the world (your truth) and there is how i see the world (my truth).

Again, if you cannot back up and support your views, and what you quite humorously call “your truth” with actual facts and proof, the “your truths” are not necessarily actual Truths at all.

Also, how anyone ‘sees’ ‘the world’ never necessarily actual Truths at all.

Calling one’s own personal views ‘truths’ can be a complete misnomer.

Would you like to provide any examples this time?

[Nausamedu]

@anew1

Are you open at all to what you believe is true here may not be true at all?

Thats what “my truth” refers to. Of course i too might be wrong.
And so might you be.
And since its a two way street, we use evidence and reasoning to mediate between our truths.
That is to say: While of course i can be wrong, why would i assume so if there is no evidence for it?
And that is to say: If you think im wrong. Prove it.

@anew1

Again, if you cannot back up and support your views, and what you quite humorously call “your truth” with actual facts and proof, the “your truths” are not necessarily actual Truths at all.

First: Its rather ironic to lecture me about supporting and backing up my statements when you cant even formulate a critique against them aside from “but what if you are wrong”.

Second: Its a self-evident fact that a reality exists separate of human experience and impression.
If that was not the case then the very concepts of learning, observing, exploring, science, etc would break down.
Its not me who is making an extraordinary claim here without facts, proof or evidence. Its you.
How can you justify the idea and notion that there is nothing out there? That reality and your idea of it are not two separate things?

Were you born with all your memories and knowledge and have not learned a single thing since then? Cause if so then i can understand your position. Surely you might be a complete anomaly and not normal in any shape or form, but unless that is the case you, just like everyone else, was born without experience and impression, and collected them throughout your life. From where? From that reality that exists separate from you.

[anew1]

@Nausamedu

@anew1

Are you open at all to what you believe is true here may not be true at all?

Thats what “my truth” refers to. Of course i too might be wrong.

Lol, So what the words ‘my truth’ refers to are things that are not necessarily true at all. And they wondered why they were still looking for the actual Truth.

Instead of saying things like ‘my truth’ why do you not just use the words that actually align with the actual Truths of things?

If the words “my truth” can refer to those things that are actually Wrong and/or False, then why even use that term and oxymoron?

Imagine thinking or saying, “This is ‘my truth’ but it may well not be true at all”.

Why did it take humanity so long to recognise the stupidity here? Or, are there still some who can not recognise and see the ridiculousness and absurdity?

@Nausamedu

And so might you be.

But, I cannot be Wrong because i do not have ‘my truth’. And the reason i do not i hope the rest of you can now see clearly why.

Again, I cannot be Wrong because of the formula and solution I have and use.

@Nausamedu

And since its a two way street, we use evidence and reasoning to mediate between our truths.

And this is exactly why these human beings took so, so long to ‘catch up’.

Again, I do not use ‘evidence’. And, using so-called ‘reasoning’, on its own, has obviously not really worked that good for you people.

@Nausamedu

That is to say: While of course i can be wrong, why would i assume so if there is no evidence for it?

Here we have a perfect example of ‘confirmation bias’, and how it had led these people so far astray.

Just because you or another have not yet seen proof never means that it does not exist. If you assume you are not wrong, then you are far less likely to see any actual counter proof, which is before you. Not just the evidence is HERE but so to is the proof.

Again, if you did not have not hold ‘your own truth’, then you, also, could have recognised and seen the actual Truth already. There are NOT any so-called “three truths”. Once more, there is only One Truth, and One only.

Are you able to comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

@Nausamedu

And that is to say: If you think im wrong. Prove it.

But I do not just think you are wrong here. I KNOW exactly where you are Wrong here.

@Nausamedu

First: Its rather ironic to lecture me about supporting and backing up my statements when you cant even formulate a critique against them aside from “but what if you are wrong”.

Why did you begin to presume that I even wanted to formulate a critique against anything you said here?

I am using your words to point out why you human beings took so long to come to recognise, see, and know the actual Truth of things.

And, again, if it is you who makes ‘the claim’, then it is up to you to back up and support ‘your claim’. I will also again suggest that you have already obtained the actual irrefutable proof for ‘your claim’ before you express ‘your claim’, especially in a public views philisophical forum.

@Nausamedu

Second: Its a self-evident fact that a reality exists separate of human experience and impression.

Okay, but have I ever said anything otherwise?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

@Nausamedu

If that was not the case then the very concepts of learning, observing, exploring, science, etc would break down.
Its not me who is making an extraordinary claim here without facts, proof or evidence. Its you.

LOL

So, what is this extraordinary claim that I am supposedly making, which supposedly I am doing without facts, proof, nor evidence exactly?

Now, you have just made another claim, so show us if you have facts or proof for it.

@Nausamedu

How can you justify the idea and notion that there is nothing out there

Have you heard of a ‘strawman’ or a 'red herring’s in discussions?

Here is a perfect example.

What you just asked me has absolutely nothing at all about anything that I have said and written anywhere here.

@Nausamedu

That reality and your idea of it are not two separate things?

Again, you are writing statements and making claims but putting question marks at the end of them.

@Nausamedu

Were you born with all your memories and knowledge and have not learned a single thing since then? Cause if so then i can understand your position.

1. your question is beyond ridiculous.
2. What even is ‘my position’ here exactly?

If you do not inform the readers here of what ‘my position’ is exactly, then how could you even begin to understand it?

By the way, I do not even recall having ‘a position’ here, let alone expressing one. But you appear to believe that you know better, right?

@Nausamedu

Surely you might be a complete anomaly and not normal in any shape or form, but unless that is the case you, just like everyone else, was born without experience and impression, and collected them throughout your life. From where? From that reality that exists separate from you.

What you do you envision, think, or believe could have led you so, so far astray here?

[Nausamedu]

Whatever anew. Have fun fighting your schizophrenia on your own. Blocked.

[anew1]

This is funny since it is you who claims that “your own truth” is not even necessarily true at all anyway.

[MrAuthoritarian]

The cosmos or universe has always existed.

There is no beginning and there is no end.

Even if everything was to be overcome by a void from that same very void life would re-emerge. The spark of life is never fully extinguished.

[anew1]

I’m curious as to how and where life could re-emerge from, exactly, if there was only void.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@anew1

Nothing remains a void for very long, the spark of life always finds a way.

[anew1]

In other words you have absolutely no idea nor clue, correct?

One only has to logically conceive of ‘void’, to recognise and know that there is ‘no thing’ at all. Which, obviously, would include sparks, fires, and life.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@anew1

Mr. Evidence and Proof man needs physical proof of the very air we breathe.

You’ll probably find fault with this as well.