Creationism provides the foundations of reasoning

Syamsu

The concepts of fact and opinion are the foundations of reasoning, and solely creationism validates both concepts, each in their own right, in one coherent conceptual scheme:

The creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / identity of which is a matter of chosen opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter fact forced by evidence

Defintion: An opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Example: To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks.

Definition: A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

Example: There is a mangotree by the river. In principle these words produce a 1 to 1 corresponding picture of said tree, by said river, forced by the evidence of such.

The logic of fact is mostly uncontroversial, except for it solely applying to creations. What is more interesting is the logic of opinion, which is sadly neglected in academics.

To more closely inspect the logic of opinion I will formulate a more abstract example of it.
1. There are alternative futures A and B, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen
2. Then there is the question "What made the decision turn out A?"
3. Then the logic of opinion requires that the answer is chosen from subjective words X and Y
4. Where either chosen answer X or Y is equally valid, but a forced answer X or Y is invalid

It is equally valid to say a painting is beautiful or ugly, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. But to be forced to say a painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion.

As you can see, the concept of opinion solves the problem of free will. By making the identity of the agency of a choice a matter of chosen opinion, we have both meaningful and free choices. A choice made out of love, or fear, etc. is a meaningful choice.

Basically it means that purely objectively all choices are random and meaningless. Then with subjectivity we can express feelings about what the agency of the choices was.

Materialist philosophy, cancels the entire first category, and takes out choosing from the second category. Which explains why materialists have problems with the concept of personal opinion, and free will.

Zophie

I wonder what happens if all references to "creator" are substituted with "knowledge"?

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Syamsu

I don't really see what the error is. Material and fact are validated in category 2. Creationism does not deny there is material.

In creationism, objects in fantasy are also classified as creations, material, and factual.

The materialist has to cram the concept of free will, choosing, emotions, personal opinion, in the material "category".

To do this, the materialist redefines choosing in terms of sorting. As like a chesscomputer calculating a move in a completely forced way. Then the emotions become to be the selection criteria in the sorting process. Making emotions factual.

Then to say a painting is beautiful, means to make a statement of fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. So that personal opinion becomes to be a subcategory of fact, namely facts about particular brainstates.

Then there is a lot of emphasis on the complexity of the brain, on the many different factors involved in a decision, which then provides variation of personal opinions.

Superficially, materialist choosing looks very similar to creationist choosing. But there are incoherencies in making opinion a subcategory of fact.

h060tu

What type of creationism?

Syamsu

↪h060tu

Philosophical creationism. Where choosing is the mechanism of creating, how material things originate. Also the same as the underlying structure in various religious creation theories, but then without specifics as to who created what when, which are variables.

Pantagruel

I wonder what happens if all references to "creator" are substituted with "knowledge"? — Zophie

Exactly. Any metaphysical system that can describe both the empirical and the subjective in criticizable (rational, intersubjective, reasoned) terms equally fulfills the success criteria assumed here. Popper's three worlds is the best example there is IMO.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Creationism basically accurately reflects the logic used in common discourse for thousands of years already.

Thousands of years ago, people already knew intuitively how to express an opinion that something is beautiful, knew to convey an accurate fact of something, knew how to talk in terms of making choices. The basic logic has not changed.

Efforts to deny creationism are futile at best, and more likely just plain lies.

Pantagruel

Efforts to deny creationism are futile at best, and more likely just plain lies. — Syamsu

I don't deny that creationism exists as a sociological fact (although I do think that is over-narrowly construing the scope of sacred meaning). That does not in any way, shape, or form imply that it is true, or valid, or accurate. At the most, you could claim that it is a "universal tendency" or preference, either at the psychological or social level.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

Truth, validity, accuracy, preference, etc. they are only meaningfully defined in respect to creationist logic. Your arbirary use of them without foundation in creationism is just noise.

Pantagruel

Truth, validity, accuracy, preference, etc. they are only meaningfully defined in respect to creationist logic. Your arbirary use of them without foundation in creationism is just noise. — Syamsu

Creationist logic is only valid within a communicative framework of rationality.

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

It seems that you are using "creationism" as a kind of anchoring symbol or paradigm of an "ultimate metaphysical value". This is exactly what Talcott Parsons calls the "Telic System". Which certainly does figure prominently in the way our personal-socio-cultural systems function.

Edit: I think this quote from Habermas pretty much parallels your reasoning about the way in which this "religious intuition" is (or tries to be) foundational:

Parsons insists that any talk of a telic system presupposes belief in a sphere of ultimate reality (This strategy is not at all unlike that with which the late Schelling, who took the experience of God's existence as his basic point of departure, introduced his "positive" philosophy.) In Parsons' words: "With full recognition of the philosophical difficulties of defining the nature of that reality we wish to affirm our sharing the age-old belief in its existence."

i.e. the essence of goal direction and valuation presupposes some shared belief in an ultimate reality - which historically has been thematized through religious beliefs and which you construe specifically as the creation myth. As far as I can tell.

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

As in the title of this topic, creationism provides the foundations of reasoning , the concepts of fact and opinion. There is no rationality without creationism.

The arbitrary philosophers that you mention, they more seem into understanding of sophisticated things, and not understanding of foundations.

Pantagruel

↪Syamsu

I'll be honest, I have no idea how to interpret your proposition in that case.

ernestm

↪Syamsu

thats some very intersting thought. Currently I am struggling with a parallel proboem, and I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts on it as expressed in the first and last post here.

[url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8180/is-christs-existence-a-fraudulent-myth[/url]

:)

Syamsu

↪Pantagruel

You say that as if it is a foregone conclusion that you will never actually read my post.

Syamsu

↪ernestm

I don't really see you emphasizing a categorical distinction between what is subjective and what is objective.

I like sushi

↪Pantagruel

This is an Issue Syamsu has been having for a long time.

↪Syamsu

It doesn’t look like you’ve taken any advice given to you previously by numerous people. I don’t see anything here that you weren’t saying a long time ago. Did I miss something new you’ve added?

I still don’t see any serious attempt at explicating your terminology. Until you try a different approach you’re just going to keep banging your head against the wall I fear.

GL

Syamsu

↪I like sushi

My definitions are great, my explanations are great, you are all just intellectual frauds.

Banno

Definition: A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind. — Syamsu

If you define fact in terms of creation, then of course you derive creationism form rationality.

My definitions are great, my explanations are great, you are all just intellectual frauds. — Syamsu

Do I detect signs of psychoceramics?

I like sushi

Basically it means that purely objectively all choices are random and meaningless. Then with subjectivity we can express feelings about what the agency of the choices was. — Syamsu

Do you at least accept that these choices have nothing to do with what happened though? You may believe for example that you are patient and polite individual when you’re actually obnoxious, condescending and plain stubborn.

A non-naturalistic perspective of ‘the world’ is certainly revealing in terms of individual meaning. We all to some degree possess our own personal ‘mythos’ - full of thoughts and feelings that we’re unable to articulate and grapple with from day-to-day (directly or otherwise).

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by Logic fo Opinion? I can understand it as Use of Opinion, as we all have to make certain spontaneous judgements (which is an admixture of logic and emotion - reason necessitates both emotions and logic they are certainly not distinct entities).

Note: I’m an ‘intellectual wannabe’ and an idiot to boot. I’m okay with that, clearly you’re not. Why? I’m not trying to mock you here just curious why you have this need to call people stupid and talk down to them. Why not just ignore us and leave us alone - ie. not post on forums where you repeatedly get the same feedback. I don’t walk up to three years olds in the street and insult then for being short or emotionally immature.

Here’s something for you: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tz7zxh9Bfow

I won’t be saying anymore so feel free to throw out some more insults if it helps. They’ll be no response forthcoming.

I genuinely wish you the best. Bye bye :)

Syamsu

↪I like sushi

Obnoxious, condescending, stubborn, all identify the agency of a choice, and are therefore a matter of chosen opinion.

Logic are rules, to talk about the logic of opinion, is to talk about the rules for opinions. And the rules are, that an opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

That means when you force the conclusion someone is obnoxious, then that is an invalid opinion. Same as to force someone to say a painting is beautiful provides an invalid opinion. Because the rules for the concept of opinion says that an opinion must be chosen, not forced.

To call people stupid, it's just a way to enforce morality. Most people on these boards are eviil. Most people here ignore emotions, disregard the concept of personal opinion. They have no clue how to prime emotions for honesty.

Syamsu

↪Banno

The point would be to argue what tthe proper definition of fact is. And that you don't argue it while contesting it, that is a sign of intellectual fraudulence.

Creationism provides the foundations of reasoning

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions