Creationist philosophy

[Syamsu]

The philosophy underlaying creationism is very simple, and very useful. It is based on dualism, two categories which comprise all of reality.

category 1: what chooses, spiritual domain, subjectively identified resulting in opinions

category 2: what is chosen, material domain, objectively measured resulting in facts

In organizing all things you know about, you should ask yourself, does it belong in the box of things that choose, or does it belong in the box of things that are chosen? Love, hate, God, fear, pleasure, pain etc. would all belong in the box of things that do the job of choosing. They are all things which take care of it that in the moment a decision turns out A instead of B, or viceversa.

All things in this box can only be known to exist by choosing they are there. So if you want to find out if somebody has love in their heart or not, then you provide for yourself the alternatives that this person has love, and doesn't have love, and then in the moment you choose an alternative. For this choosing to be meaningful it has to be somewhat sophisticated. What you cannot do is reach a conclusion about the spiritual domain based on evidence. That is because evidence forces you to a conclusion, destroying the freedom neccessary to form an opinion.

Instead evidence applies to the material domain, it applies to what is chosen. We can certainly imagine that the earth might have turned out differently than it did. Which means that there were alternative futures available, and it was chosen. Even we might imagine that there could have been only nothing, as in zero, which means that everything there is now has been chosen to be, instead of alternatively there being nothing. That is the definition of information. A bit is either 0 or 1 alternatively. And like bits, everything also exists of chosen alternatives.

When we are evidencing something to exist, then we are in essence rewriting information. We are copying / transferring information from nature, which results in a model of the thing we are evidencing. For example when you look at the moon, then the moon sends information by medium of light, through your eyes, into your brain, resulting in a picture of the moon in your mind. Basically the moon caused the picture to exist as an effect. Where subjectivity works by freedom, objectivity works by force.

Subjectivity creates information from nothing, it creates the information which way the choice turns out. As we can see that choosing requires at least 2 alternatives available, we must then also say that there are at least 2 logically correct answers to any question about what is in the spiritual domain. For example the answer might be love or hate alternatively. It could not be just 1 answer, because then there would be nothing to choose, and the answer would then be forced, while force only applies to the material domain. But that logically there have to be 2 answers available, does not mean that every alternative answer is morally upright, or that any alternative answer is morally upright.

Who you are as the owner of your choices is called your soul, or spirit. As the soul therefore belongs in the category of things that choose, the existence of it can only be established by choosing it is there. So there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of you as the owner of your choices. We can see in the brain that in the moment it can turn out A or B in freedom, but we can see nothing at all which is doing this.

What scientists are doing in society, and this is very bad, is that they are promoting the idea to objectively look at people to reach a conclusion whether they are loving or hateful, and they are surpressing the idea to subjectively look into the soul of somebody. The scientists only refer to the results of your choices, refer to the way your brain turned out, they do not subjectively acknowledge you as the owner of your choices. And this is very, very, very awful, it is the most coldhearted, dehumanizing crime to withold from subjectively acknowledging people as the owner of their choices. By reasonable judgement it feels very bad not to be acknowledged this subjective way and to only be measured.

On this forum many people still advocate implicitly, and somewhat explicitely, this vicious line of thinking where all subjectivity is held to be wrong, merely because subjectivity is not objectivity.

Creationist philosophy doesn't mandate belief in the holy spirit, neither does it mandate belief in the human spirit, the philosophy solely provides the freedom to believe or not. It supports freedom of opinion, democracy, and also it supports science, objectivity. Creationist philosophy underlies most all what is good about the Western world.

[JohnTiger]

I must say I didn't read all of this post

I stopped after the 2 categories

category 1: what chooses, spiritual domain, subjectively identified resulting in opinions

category 2: what is chosen, material domain, objectively measured resulting in facts

You are implying that everything that is spiritual is able to chose, why the anthropomorphisation? For all we know, choice may not even exist in the spiritual domain.

You are implying that everything physical can not chose, including humans? I chose to reply to you, how does this fit in your equation?

You are implying that subjectivity or opinions can not pertain to material things? Is objectivity really possible?

Why choice in the first place, I personally like to think I was accidental...

In fact, according to my parents, it's actually the case lol.

I don't know, there was just too many loose ends at that point and so I stopped reading. Feel free to justify these categories.

[Syamsu]

I must say I didn't read all of this post

I stopped after the 2 categories

category 1: what chooses, spiritual domain, subjectively identified resulting in opinions

category 2: what is chosen, material domain, objectively measured resulting in facts

You are implying that everything that is spiritual is able to chose, why the anthropomorphisation? For all we know, choice may not even exist in the spiritual domain.

You are implying that everything physical can not chose, including humans? I chose to reply to you, how does this fit in your equation?

You are implying that subjectivity or opinions can not pertain to material things? Is objectivity really possible?

Why choice in the first place, I personally like to think I was accidental...

In fact, according to my parents, it's actually the case lol.

I don't know, there was just too many loose ends at that point and so I stopped reading. Feel free to justify these categories.

I am afraid you just have to read it, even study it. I am interested to know how I can make creationist philosophy more accessible, so that people can consider it fairly. But I think that would involve cartoons and stuff, and possibly also the sanction of school behind it, so that people must study in order to pass an exam on creationism.

I am arguing about simple fundamentals, you are thinking on a much more complex level, you argue on a level of socialized understanding of things.

[JohnTiger]

I'm afraid I shall read and study whatever I see fit

Creationism is not a philosophy, it is a religious belief that uses dogmas it order to justify itself circularly within the confines of religion. To call it a philosophy almost feels like an insult to reason, well that's how it feels to me anyways.

So, Apprehending to be barraged by a discourse of religious indoctrination, assisting to a preaching session instead of a philosophical exchange, I highlighted the weaknesses in your premise from the get go. Sadly, I'm thinking this might have been in vain, but who knows..

If you insist and want to consider creationism a as philosophy, feel free. But in this case, you should expect your arguments be put under the same philosophical scrutiny as any subject would be.

-- addendum --

I did take the time to read the post and you would be happy to know that, while strictly using your wild allegations I managed to state that:

- God existed only as a subjective opinion whimsically created by humans without the need for any form of evidence.

I found that pleasantly ironic

[Syamsu]

I'm afraid I shall read and study whatever I see fit

Creationism is not a philosophy, it is a religious belief that uses dogmas it order to justify itself circularly within the confines of religion. To call it a philosophy almost feels like an insult to reason, well that's how it feels to me anyways.

So, Apprehending to be barraged by a discourse of religious indoctrination, assisting to a preaching session instead of a philosophical exchange, I highlighted the weaknesses in your premise from the get go. Sadly, I'm thinking this might have been in vain, but who knows..

If you insist and want to consider creationism a as philosophy, feel free. But in this case, you should expect your arguments be put under the same philosophical scrutiny as any subject would be.

-- addendum --

I did take the time to read the post and you would be happy to know that, while strictly using your wild allegations I managed to state that:

- God existed only as a subjective opinion whimsically created by humans without the need for any form of evidence.

I found that pleasantly ironic

Yes, almost correct. The word God was created to express a feeling in relation to the owner of all decisions. That there is a first and last decision (creation and final judgement) and people relating to the spirit of those decisions made and yet to be made, feel it to be God. So it means there is a feeling associated to the belief in God, which is an essential part of believing. Similarly the word beauty also was created to express a feeling, and beauty is also relevant to what chooses. Neither for beauty or for God is there any evidence, because they are in the category of what chooses.

This is actually a clever way to legitimize subjectivity, you will have no better way. That you look upon it as a way to cheat out of the work to do evidence gathering shows you are prejudiced towards objectivity, and against subjectivity, instead of giving each their rightful place.

Oh yeah, creationist philosophy was popular among late medieval monks. These guys were very clever at logic, so just to say that realisticly you have no chance to find fault in it.

[Wooden shoe]

Hello Syamsu.

I have a real problem with your two boxes theory, but it did make me think. When I examine my life and the choices I have made, I find that objectivity and subjectivity are to much intertwined to fit neatly in separate boxes. Let me give an example. I live 22km outside of a town and need a car for my transportation because there is no public oneI for me to use. My subjective choice would be a two-seater sportscar, however my objective reality is that the two-seater will not work because of a number of reasons. I will not bother you with all the various objective and subjective thoughts which controlled my final decision because I am sure you will understand what I am trying to say.

Regards, John.

[JohnTiger]

Yes, almost correct. The word God was created to express a feeling in relation to the owner of all decisions.

I'll let you discover the blatant contradiction in that statement

[...]So it means there is a feeling associated to the belief in God, which is an essential part of believing.

This is rethorical at best, there is a feeling associated to any belief, I'm still searching for the philosophical content here.

Similarly the word beauty also was created to express a feeling, and beauty is also relevant to what chooses. Neither for beauty or for God is there any evidence, because they are in the category of what chooses.

Well, you chose to believe that.

This is actually a clever way to legitimize subjectivity, you will have no better way.

A tad pretencious to say, don't you think. Why would you need to legitimize something that is part of the human condition anyways. There is a wide variety of better ways to explore human subjectivity. It feels like you're trying to sell me shampoo... give me arguments, not convictions or beliefs.

That you look upon it as a way to cheat out of the work to do evidence gathering shows you are prejudiced towards objectivity, and against subjectivity, instead of giving each their rightful place.

where did that come from? I'm prejudiced against people that pretend that their system of beliefs correspond to an actual philosophy

Oh yeah, creationist philosophy was popular among late medieval monks. These guys were very clever at logic, so just to say that realisticly you have no chance to find fault in it.

I'll have to call ad hominem here, respectfully.

Somehow I knew what I was getting into. And I'll reply only if i see arguments instead of fueling this ridicule discourse.

hasta pronto!

[Syamsu]

(Nested quote removed.)


I'll let you discover the blatant contradiction in that statement


(Nested quote removed.)


This is rethorical at best, there is a feeling associated to any belief, I'm still searching for the philosophical content here.


(Nested quote removed.)


Well, you chose to believe that.


(Nested quote removed.)


A tad pretencious to say, don't you think. Why would you need to legitimize something that is part of the human condition anyways. There is a wide variety of better ways to explore human subjectivity. It feels like you're trying to sell me shampoo... give me arguments, not convictions or beliefs.


(Nested quote removed.)


where did that come from? I'm prejudiced against people that pretend that their system of beliefs correspond to an actual philosophy


(Nested quote removed.)


I'll have to call ad hominem here, respectfully.

Somehow I knew what I was getting into. And I'll reply only if i see arguments instead of fueling this ridicule discourse.

hasta pronto!

The arguments are in the original posting. The reason one has to legitimize subjectivity is for instance protect it from objectivity. Through original sin people are want to have knowledge of good and evil, which objectifies what is supposed to be subjective. It requires a bit of self-discipline sometimes that when you make statements about beauty and such, you do so in freedom, by choosing it in the moment, instead of using the word in a calculating forced way in order to achieve some goal. Example saying someone is beautiful then that person may give you some benefit, but it is wrong to say it for benefit, because one has to choose it in freedom whether you truly find that person beautiful.

And that these monks were very clever and constructed a philosophy without fault is just my experience. You seem to be very confident that you will find fault, I am just saying, not likely.

-- Updated March 7th, 2013, 5:36 am to add the following --

Hello Syamsu.

I have a real problem with your two boxes theory, but it did make me think. When I examine my life and the choices I have made, I find that objectivity and subjectivity are to much intertwined to fit neatly in separate boxes. Let me give an example. I live 22km outside of a town and need a car for my transportation because there is no public oneI for me to use. My subjective choice would be a two-seater sportscar, however my objective reality is that the two-seater will not work because of a number of reasons. I will not bother you with all the various objective and subjective thoughts which controlled my final decision because I am sure you will understand what I am trying to say.

Regards, John.

Right, real world examples are too complex to categorize in detail, it is more of a general guidance.

[Taylorthephilosopher]

Creationism, at its best, relies upon scientific ideas and certain philosophical truths to make its argument.

1) Causality = there is a cause for everything, including the universe. (this is the biggest one)

2) Infinite divisibility of Material leads to the assumption that it is not real.

3) Inanimate objects became aware and intelligent and capable of behavior, which indicates an external causal factor capable of creating life.

4) Free will.

[Syamsu]

Creationism, at its best, relies upon scientific ideas and certain philosophical truths to make its argument.

1) Causality = there is a cause for everything, including the universe. (this is the biggest one)

2) Infinite divisibility of Material leads to the assumption that it is not real.

3) Inanimate objects became aware and intelligent and capable of behavior, which indicates an external causal factor capable of creating life.

4) Free will.

Only free will is required for creationism, which is also shown by the context that evolutionists don't believe in free will.

1 Neither God, or any person choosing is a regular cause and effect, where the cause contains the information of the effect.

2 space is continuous, it can just be mathematically established

3 is same as 1

[Taylorthephilosopher]

(Nested quote removed.)


Only free will is required for creationism, which is also shown by the context that evolutionists don't believe in free will.

1 Neither God, or any person choosing is a regular cause and effect, where the cause contains the information of the effect.

2 space is continuous, it can just be mathematically established

3 is same as 1

i find your post difficult to comprehend. Could you try again in different words?

[Syamsu]

(Nested quote removed.)


i find your post difficult to comprehend. Could you try again in different words?

Not without more specification on what you find difficult. And you should read the entire.... original post where everything is explained with some examples.

[Taylorthephilosopher]

(Nested quote removed.)


Not without more specification on what you find difficult. And you should read the entire.... original post where everything is explained with some examples.

Well, you said something about god and people not being normal causes of things and something about space being continuous. I'm not sure how either of those statements contradict the things i said

[Syamsu]

(Nested quote removed.)

Well, you said something about god and people not being normal causes of things and something about space being continuous. I'm not sure how either of those statements contradict the things i said

I guess the explanation is mostly in the original posting.

[Taylorthephilosopher]

You make lots of assertions I dont agree with in your original post.

Your fundamental position about spiritual subjectivity and material objectivity is one, for example.

Spiritual ideas can be, and should be if they are to have any integrity, a basis built on evidence from personal experiences. Evidence can be attained, in the form of experiences with the energy of consciousness which indicates a non-physical nature of spirit, and the universe which causes events to happen that cause realizations and life lessons that are directly in response to recent prayers and/or circumstances of an individual. These evidences arent proof of course, but evidence is never proof.

And Material observances are subject to errors from faulty sensory organs, as well as misconeptions due to false preconceptions.



Now, if you could explain your criticisms of my main reasons for creationism, I'd like that.