Creationist philosophy

[Nando Ronteltap]

Part of the materialists deny free will, and part of them define it in terms of that you could not have done otherwise. Creationism just straightforwardly accepts free will as it is in common discourse.

Subjectivity is about emotions, which emotions are motivation to choices. A subjective opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. That's how it works in comon discourse. Choice is the mechanism of creation, how things originate, as explained in the OP. That is how subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept.

So it is obvious that materialists are having problems with free will and subjectivity, and denying it, or changing the meaning of it, to accomodate materialism.

Besides nazi and communist very obvious assertions of scientific certitude in matters of opinion, presently there are also a lot of atheists doing the same thing. These atheists go on about facts all the time, and never mention subjective opinion, faith. They mention faith as wrong a lot. Some evolution scientist uses a subjective word like "selfish" in his theory, and suddenly all these atheists are speaking about morality on the basis of that.

It is all quite obvious how it works, that evolution theory undermines subjectivity in general. The evidence easy to see, directly available.

 

[Ophiolite]

Part of the materialists deny free will, and part of them define it in terms of that you could not have done otherwise. Creationism just straightforwardly accepts free will as it is in common discourse.

Free will as it is used in "common discourse" is ambiguous, contradictory, ill-defined, changeable and about as much use as bag of wet cement at a wine tasting.

Subjectivity is about emotions, which emotions are motivation to choices. A subjective opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. That's how it works in comon discourse. Choice is the mechanism of creation, how things originate, as explained in the OP. That is how subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept..

You really cannot expect agreement, when you change definitions in order to suit your agenda.

So it is obvious that materialists are having problems with free will and subjectivity, and denying it, or changing the meaning of it, to accomodate materialism.

This is a pointless generalisation. There is not a single materialist view on the nature of free will.

Besides nazi and communist very obvious assertions of scientific certitude in matters of opinion, presently there are also a lot of atheists doing the same thing. These atheists go on about facts all the time, and never mention subjective opinion, faith. They mention faith as wrong a lot. Some evolution scientist uses a subjective word like "selfish" in his theory, and suddenly all these atheists are speaking about morality on the basis of that.

It is all quite obvious how it works, that evolution theory undermines subjectivity in general. The evidence easy to see, directly available.

You really have developed some peculiar ideas and perceptions. It's difficult to know where to start - one suspects that not starting might be the sensible choice, but that's just the subjective opinion of a materialist, so I'll pick up on one point.

Dawkins published a book, back in the 70's, where he spoke of the Selfish Gene. His intentions were promptly misunderstood by many atheists, agnostics, theists, deists and stamp collectors. You seem to have joined that misguided grouping. Evolutionists have expressed views on morality with varying degrees of success and rigour long before, and quite independently of Dawkins work.

I recommend, before you further indulge promotion of your poorly founded speculations that you dip a little into the material world and get your facts straight. You might attract more positive attention that way.

 

[Job 33:6]

I attempted to read the original post 3 times over. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationism like it's intellectual cousin intelligent design are natural theology. The basic epistimology affirms that naturalistic reasoning confors to the biblical doctrine and theistic inferences of the two approaches respectively. The two are neither inductive science nor systematic theology. Creationism is based on essential doctrine while intelligent design makes inferences based on common logic. They are experiments in naturalistic reasoning that effect neither natural science nor sacred theology. The church has dabbled in this approaxh down through the ages, never given full weight to its logic or conclusions drawn from this exercise in evidential apologetics.

All that's needed to support ID or creation is a thoughtful look at things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I try reasoning with you. We all basically use the same common discourse. And in our common discourse we have subjective words, and talk of making choices. Our common discourse is based on creationist logic.

Now what's going to happen when someone intellectually denies creationism is true?

Then they have a significant difference between their intellectual persona and their common discourse persona. That means they say one thing is true in common discourse, and intellectually they say something else is true. It's going to make duplicity? identity problems? lack of emotional credibility? a split personality? a coldhearted calculating persona at the intellectual level?

What's a politician going to do about freedom of opinion, if he or she doesn't even accept free will is real? What is going to happen with racism? Ideas about people being determined by biology, they are going to have more credence when free will is denied?

Perhaps evolutionists and politicians deny free will because so many are so easily manipulated by them.

 

[Speedwell]

All that's needed to support ID or creation is a thoughtful look at things.

And unshakable faith in the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And unshakable faith in the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

Yes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationism is silly. Unless you're a christian/muslim who thinks their eternal destiny depends on it, there's no reason to take it's claims seriously (think flat earth here).

ToE is one the most robust scientific theories out there. We have 160 years of evidence, and there are no competing hypotheses. It's time to accept it and move on.

I shoot a traditional recurve bow. There are no competing weapons.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes.

Which makes the OP moot. In fact, these creation/evolution discussions are never about the existence of God. The theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God, one away or the other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which makes the OP moot. In fact, these creation/evolution discussions are never about the existence of God. The theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God, one away or the other.

I rarely argue from a religious position either. Observation alone reveals purposeful creation.

 

[Ophiolite]

I rarely argue from a religious position either. Observation alone reveals purposeful creation.

I've yet to see you offer an argument of any kind.
Assertions are not arguments.
Casual dismissal of evidence is not an argument.
Fatuous remarks are not arguments.
Confident statements are not arguments.
Irrelevant points are not arguments.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've yet to see you offer an argument of any kind.
Assertions are not arguments.
Casual dismissal of evidence is not an argument.
Fatuous remarks are not arguments.
Confident statements are not arguments.
Irrelevant points are not arguments.

I've offered the general study of human and animal anatomy as well as the interdependence of various disparate species, explainable only by special creation.

By 'fatuous' I assume you mean something that you don't agree with or don't understand.

 

[durangodawood]

I've offered the general study of human and animal anatomy as well as the interdependence of various disparate species,...

Just dropping the fact that scientists have done work isnt an argument either.

 

[Speedwell]

I rarely argue from a religious position either. Observation alone reveals purposeful creation.

But do not deny the theory of evolution. Only a literal reading of Genesis does that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just dropping the fact that scientists have done work isnt an argument either.

I tip my hat science for presenting the evidence of creation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But do not deny the theory of evolution. Only a literal reading of Genesis does that.

The physical evidence supports creation, even without regard to the Genesis account.

 

[Speedwell]

The physical evidence supports creation, even without regard to the Genesis account.

But it doesn't support creation according to the Genesis account.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But it doesn't support creation according to the Genesis account.

I'll let science sort that out.

 

[Speedwell]

I'll let science sort that out.

Been and done, these two hundred years since.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Been and done, these two hundred years since.

They shouldn't have made their research public. Many reached different conclusions than they did.