Comparing philosophies, creationism is the best.

[Syamsu]

I will explain how creationism is the best philosophy.

It is crystal clear materialism validates fact. The existence of a material thing, like the planet earth, is a fact. Materialism does not validate subjective opinion, like about what is beautiful. With materialism we can note the fact opinions exist, but this is just more validation of fact, not validation of opinion.

Then there is postmodernism which asserts that opinion is inherent in statements of fact. This provides some validation for opinion, but it makes a conceptual mess by not distinguishing fact from opinion.

Then there is creationism, defined as the general structure of a creation theory, where both fact and opinion are validated, each in their own right.

Rather than looking for definitions of fact and opinion in dictionaries, which dictionaries may be prejudiced, I've looked at common discourse to find the underlaying logic used with fact and opinion.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation that the fact is about.

Example: Consider the phrase "there is a mangotree by the river". In principle these words provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of said tree, forced by the evidence of such. If the evidence were lacking, then it would be called a guess. If there wasn't a mangotree there, then the stated fact would not correspond 1 to 1 with what the fact is about, and the proposed fact would be called inaccurate, a fantasy, or false.

An opinion is formed with a choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Example: Consider the phrase "I find this painting beautiful". The opinion was formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. The opinion the painting is ugly could also have been chosen, and would be equally valid. The word "beautiful", expresses a love for the way the painting looks as being agency of the choice to say it is beautiful. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, would provide a meaningless or invalid opinion.

Noticeably, that it is equally logically valid to say the painting is beautiful, as to say it is ugly, means that the existence of the love for the way the painting looks is a matter of opinion. It is equally valid to make the opinion this love does not exist, as it is to say this love does exist.

Choice is the mechanism of creation, it is how things originate. Defined as making an alternative future the present, or defined as making a possibility, which is in the future, the present, or not the present.

By these definitions of fact and opinion it is impossible to create a creator. One cannot create love or any other agency of a choice. So it means one can organize matter to make it have a centralized decisonmaking capability, but one cannot create the agency of those decisions.

[PrfromTexas]

Hello Syamsu,

I never support the absolute and extreme statements (best-worst). I see the valid points in each philosophy. And that's the main reason we actually can talk about philosophy itself - because we have many.

[Age]

Hello Syamsu,

I never support the absolute and extreme statements (best-worst). I see the valid points in each philosophy. And that's the main reason we actually can talk about philosophy itself - because we have many.

Great point. Being able to see both the valid AND the invalid points in ALL sides is THE way to find middle ground where it is possible to see the actual TRUTH, of things.

[TimeSeeker]

I have recently reached a similar conclusion, only my understanding of 'creationism' is not as the common understanding. We, society/humans are the creators.

We create the Language to describe the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_grammar
We create Knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
We create Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Truth is a social construct born out of pragmatic ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

Here is an anecdote. The Bible was originally written in Greek. And so this is John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In the beginning of the Word, and the Word is in the sight of God, and God is the Word.

Two questions that you ought to ask:
1. Why is 'Word' spelled with capital 'W' ?
2. What is the etymology of Λόγος because 'Word' is lost in translation in English ?

[Syamsu]

Those are no good replies. You should read the post.

Materialism and post modernism are very popular especially in academics. Creationism is generally denied in academics. That leaves subjectivity in the dumps. That's very bad. It's very, very bad. People's emotions ignored, it's bad.

You should consider how bad it is that when a materialist in common discourse says they "care", which is subjective, intellectually they are saying caring is bullshit.

You should consider how great it is that creationism validates to say, things are great. Things are bad, things are so-so, how great is subjective opinion?

Materialism, postmodernism, it's evil. People hate subjective opinion, and they love facts. People want everything to be factual, that's why materialism rules academics. One could say the trouble people have with expressing their emotions, is the same trouble people are having with accepting the validity of creationist philosophy.

One could say that perhaps because subjectivity is engrained in common discourse, so unavoidable to an extent, it doesn't really matter so much to validate subiective opinion philosopically. But when you look at political ideologies it shows that it matters a great deal. Politics is at a more intellectual level than common discourse, and there it is quite clear that materialist ideas such as various socialistic ideas, are horrific for the lack of acknowledgement of people's emotions. Materialists who act more on an intellectual level than a common level, they only have developed a stonecold calculating persona on that intellectual level. They are divorced from subjectivity on that level, because they do not validate subjectivity intellectually.

So academics is steeped in evil. It's a cesspool.

[Greta]

Better out than in, as they say.

[Age]

I have recently reached a similar conclusion, only my understanding of 'creationism' is not as the common understanding. We, society/humans are the creators.

We create the Language to describe the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_grammar
We create Knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
We create Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Truth is a social construct born out of pragmatic ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

We, human beings, also create the pollution, the wars, and the overall destruction. We, human beings, are the CREATOR's of the mess we live in. There is NO other thing to blame other than US, ourselves.

We are the creators of (the) life (that we live, in).

Therefore, quite simply, if we change, FOR THE BETTER, then we WILL obviously also create a BETTER way of life, for ourselves.

Here is an anecdote. The Bible was originally written in Greek. And so this is John 1:1

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In the beginning of the Word, and the Word is in the sight of God, and God is the Word.

Two questions that you ought to ask:
1. Why is 'Word' spelled with capital 'W' ?
2. What is the etymology of Λόγος because 'Word' is lost in translation in English ?

If we replace the word 'Word' with Reason and take out the word 'the' before the word Word, then that changes things a bit.

In the beginning of Reason, Reason is in the sight of God, God is Reason.
When human beings begin to look with Reason (and logic), Reason (and logic) is seen by God, God IS Reason (and logic).
God refers to living peacefully in harmony.
When human beings begin looking (a different way then they have bee) with Reason (logically), then being able to live Reason-ably in peace will be seen (understood), and then living that God(-like) way IS able to be simply Reasoned (explained).


Also, capital letters are used to highlight the objectiveness of the word. For example, 'Truth' is the objective version of 'truth', which is just the subjective version. Remember agreement by ALL is necessary for objectiveness to exist. But to you objectiveness is not even a possibility, right? So, just dismiss, or forget, all I have said here.

[TimeSeeker]

We, human beings, also create the pollution, the wars, and the overall destruction. We, human beings, are the CREATOR's of the mess we live in. There is NO other thing to blame other than US, ourselves.

We are the creators of (the) life (that we live, in).

I asked you in another thread - I'll ask you again. Since you don't like what society looks like in 2018, which year and which country would you prefer to live in?

In the beginning of Reason, Reason is in the sight of God, God is Reason.

The problem with this line of thought is that when you use the word 'reason' I can go ahead and say that there is a wrong and a right way to reason. And your way is wrong

The rules of logic are transparent - out in the open. For every one to see. We can agree to them and adhere to them.

The rules of 'reason' - well. Not so much. 'reason' is a magical word. A lot like 'God'

[Age]

We, human beings, also create the pollution, the wars, and the overall destruction. We, human beings, are the CREATOR's of the mess we live in. There is NO other thing to blame other than US, ourselves.

We are the creators of (the) life (that we live, in).

I asked you in another thread - I'll ask you again. Since you don't like what society looks like in 2018, which year and which country would you prefer to live in?

I must of missed it. In which thread did you ask that?

WHO said i do not like what society looks like in 2018? I have NEVER said that.

In fact it was I that said the Universe is 'absolute perfection'. What the society looks like in 2018 is in the Universe, therefore, it must also be a part of the absolute perfection. So, I would not prefer to be anywhere else in any other time. I exist in absolute perfection now.

You must of mistaken me for someone else I guess.

In the beginning of Reason, Reason is in the sight of God, God is Reason.

The problem with this line of thought is that when you use the word 'reason' I can go ahead and say that there is a wrong and a right way to reason. And your way is wrong

Yes you can say absolutely any thing you like. You have the freedom to do so. But if you were to say one way is wrong, and you want to make that clear and understood, then you would show what the right way is also. Otherwise it is just an opinion with no substance at all.

The rules of logic are transparent - out in the open. For every one to see. We can agree to them and adhere to them.

The rules of 'reason' - well. Not so much. 'reason' is a magical word. A lot like 'God'

If we take out the word 'magical' here, then was that not just about exactly what that quote you used was saying?

We can only base Reason on what is able to be Reasoned. A lot like God. We can only base God on what is able to be Reasoned

[TimeSeeker]

WHO said i do not like what society looks like in 2018? I have NEVER said that.

OK well, I am trying to interpret your words and I keep bumping into incompatible/self-contradictory ideas so help me understand.

From your words I hear that you want to improve society? Yes?

Also from your words:

In fact it was I that said the Universe is 'absolute perfection'. What the society looks like in 2018 is in the Universe, therefore, it must also be a part of the absolute perfection. So, I would not prefer to be anywhere else in any other time. I exist in absolute perfection now.

So you want to improve "absolute perfection" ?

You must of mistaken me for someone else I guess.

Quite possible. It seems you have a split personality

Yes you can say absolutely any thing you like. You have the freedom to do so. But if you were to say one way is wrong, and you want to make that clear and understood, then you would show what the right way is also. Otherwise it is just an opinion with no substance at all.

And what if the person that doesn't understand lacks the knowledge to understand the 'right way'? How do you teach somebody who doesn't want to be taught?

If we take out the word 'magical' here, then was that not just about exactly what that quote you used was saying?

We can only base Reason on what is able to be Reasoned. A lot like God. We can only base God on what is able to be Reasoned

And based on YOUR quote above. Explain to me how 'reason' works. Teach me 'to reason'

[Age]

WHO said i do not like what society looks like in 2018? I have NEVER said that.

OK well, I am trying to interpret your words and I keep bumping into incompatible/self-contradictory ideas so help me understand.

Please help me also. WHERE are my supposedly incompatible/self-contradictory ideas that you say you keep bumping into?

If they are incompatible/self-contradictory ideas, then I would like to be made aware of them, so that I can change them.

From your words I hear that you want to improve society? Yes?

Not necessarily want to improve society. That will happen in the right time. I just KNOW how it will happen. It is not up to me to improve society. Only ALL the human beings of a society can improve society. I just keep wanting to learn how to communicate better so that I can be heard and fully understood. That way I will be able to show how YOU can all live together in peace and harmony.

If YOU all want to improve society, then great. If you all do not want to improve society, then great also. I do not have to put up with the way all of you live, you do. At least you all with now have the knowledge. If you want to use it, then that is up to you.

Also from your words:

In fact it was I that said the Universe is 'absolute perfection'. What the society looks like in 2018 is in the Universe, therefore, it must also be a part of the absolute perfection. So, I would not prefer to be anywhere else in any other time. I exist in absolute perfection now.

So you want to improve "absolute perfection" ?

Is that even possible?

If not, then WHY ask the question?

If yes, then HOW?

Or, maybe you are just assuming some thing that is not even here?

You must of mistaken me for someone else I guess.

Quite possible. It seems you have a split personality

From a certain perspective it could be argued there is far more truth in that then even you could ever imagine, for now.

Yes you can say absolutely any thing you like. You have the freedom to do so. But if you were to say one way is wrong, and you want to make that clear and understood, then you would show what the right way is also. Otherwise it is just an opinion with no substance at all.

And what if the person that doesn't understand lacks the knowledge to understand the 'right way'?

What person, and, does not understand what exactly?

You do realize that you have to share some knowledge before you can jump to the conclusion that there are people who do not understand it, right?

If a person has not been given knowledge of the 'right' way, which is still held within you, of course they will lack the knowledge to understand the 'right' way. That is obviously a given.

If you do NOT express an idea, then how would you even know if another person does not understand it?

How do you teach somebody who doesn't want to be taught?

You can not.

If we take out the word 'magical' here, then was that not just about exactly what that quote you used was saying?

We can only base Reason on what is able to be Reasoned. A lot like God. We can only base God on what is able to be Reasoned

And based on YOUR quote above. Explain to me how 'reason' works. Teach me 'to reason'

Reason works by deciphering the knowledge already stored within the human body. That is how 'reason' works.

There are, however, two ways to reason;
One way provides unambiguous facts that cannot be disputed, which will create a truly peaceful world for everyone.
One way provides those "answers" that have created this world that human beings live in now.

[TimeSeeker]

Please help me also. WHERE are my supposedly incompatible/self-contradictory ideas that you say you keep bumping into?

If they are incompatible/self-contradictory ideas, then I would like to be made aware of them, so that I can change them.

Not necessarily want to improve society. That will happen in the right time. I just KNOW how it will happen. It is not up to me to improve society. Only ALL the human beings of a society can improve society.

That is what I am doing. If the universe is "absolute perfection", and society is part of the universe, and humans are absolutely perfect.

Then how can humans improve absolute perfection?

Is that even possible?

If not, then WHY ask the question?

If yes, then HOW?

Or, maybe you are just assuming some thing that is not even here?

That is what I am asking also.

That the universe is "absolute perfection" is your premise, is it not?
That "absolute perfection" can be improved in future is also your claim, is it not?

And if it is possible to improve "absolute perfection" then is it "absolute" OR "perfection"?

What person, and, does not understand what exactly?

You do realize that you have to share some knowledge before you can jump to the conclusion that there are people who do not understand it, right?

That is true for two people. For one person the minimum bar is that their own ideas cannot contradict themselves.

And so the idea you have tabled is "Improving absolute perfection". Either that is a contradiction, OR I am misunderstanding you.

Reason works by deciphering the knowledge already stored within the human body. That is how 'reason' works.

There are, however, two ways to reason;
One way provides unambiguous facts that cannot be disputed, which will create a truly peaceful world for everyone.
One way provides those "answers" that have created this world that human beings live in now.

OK, where do I expect to find the answer to this question: How do I improve absolute perfection?

[Age]

Please help me also. WHERE are my supposedly incompatible/self-contradictory ideas that you say you keep bumping into?

If they are incompatible/self-contradictory ideas, then I would like to be made aware of them, so that I can change them.

Not necessarily want to improve society. That will happen in the right time. I just KNOW how it will happen. It is not up to me to improve society. Only ALL the human beings of a society can improve society.

That is what I am doing. If the universe is "absolute perfection", and society is part of the universe, and humans are absolutely perfect.

The Universe, Itself, IS absolute perfection. Societies within the Universe are NOT absolutely perfect, nor are human beings absolutely perfect. But, in saying that, WHERE society and human beings ARE in the evolutionary cycle are in absolute perfection.

Then how can humans improve absolute perfection?[/quote]

Human beings can NOT improve absolute perfection, just like NO other thing within the Universe can improve the Universe, absolute perfection. What can improve is human beings and what they DO.

Human behavior, or misbehavior to use a more accurate term, is, just about, the ONLY thing that needs improving. The Universe/absolute perfection has human being misbehaving the way that they are now for a reason.

Is that even possible?

If not, then WHY ask the question?

If yes, then HOW?

Or, maybe you are just assuming some thing that is not even here?

That is what I am asking also.

That the universe is "absolute perfection" is your premise, is it not?[/quote]

Yes.

That "absolute perfection" can be improved in future is also your claim, is it not?

It is NOT.

And if it is possible to improve "absolute perfection" then is it "absolute" OR "perfection"?

Question NOT needed because of previous answer given.

What person, and, does not understand what exactly?

You do realize that you have to share some knowledge before you can jump to the conclusion that there are people who do not understand it, right?

That is true for two people. For one person the minimum bar is that their own ideas cannot contradict themselves.

And so the idea you have tabled is "Improving absolute perfection". Either that is a contradiction, OR I am misunderstanding you.

Thanks for the openness here. This leads to much simpler and truly easier flowing communication.

You are just misunderstanding me.

You were going great, that is, till you made the assumption that i was going to answer one of your questions with "it is possible to improve on absolute perfection", and then you continued on asking questions based on that (wrong) assumption.

I KNOW it can be seemingly hard, or even impossible sometimes, to NOT assume. For one reason because it has become such a habit for human beings. For another reason because of beliefs but it really is possible.If human beings can remain fully and completely OPEN always, then the RIGHT answers come so much quicker, simpler, and easier to them.

Reason works by deciphering the knowledge already stored within the human body. That is how 'reason' works.

There are, however, two ways to reason;
One way provides unambiguous facts that cannot be disputed, which will create a truly peaceful world for everyone.
One way provides those "answers" that have created this world that human beings live in now.

OK, where do I expect to find the answer to this question: How do I improve absolute perfection?

Even you KNEW all along just how ridiculous that question was/is. But you were so looking forward to asking it, RIGHT?

You were going great asking those OPEN questions, but as soon as you made that assumption it all seemed to fall to bits.

You, nor no one else, can improve absolute perfection. (I will leave this last sentence here for my own studying and learning purposes).

But you get the idea - absolute perfection can NOT be improved upon. So, you can NOT improve nor even change absolute perfection in any way, shape nor form, but what you can do is you can change your self. That is, of course, only if you want.

[TimeSeeker]

The Universe, Itself, IS absolute perfection. Societies within the Universe are NOT absolutely perfect, nor are human beings absolutely perfect. But, in saying that, WHERE society and human beings ARE in the evolutionary cycle are in absolute perfection.

OK. This is a conceptual error and a logical fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

You are drawing a line through the universe where such line doesn't exist. We call such lines categories. On the one side is "the universe" and on the other side is "humanity/society". On the one side you have perfection, on the other you have imperfection.

But at the same time we are part OF the universe. We are made of the same stuff as the universe (quarks, leptons, electrons, energy).
So if we are made of the same stuff as the universe, and the universe is perfect but we aren't then...why is the universe perfect and we aren't?

You seem to have a dualistic conception of how humanity fits in the big picture of the universe.

Either the universe and all of its contents (humans/humanity included) are perfect or they are not.

Further addressing of your points not needed until you tackle this. And if you have chosen a path of dualism for yourself - that is also fine

[Age]

The Universe, Itself, IS absolute perfection. Societies within the Universe are NOT absolutely perfect, nor are human beings absolutely perfect. But, in saying that, WHERE society and human beings ARE in the evolutionary cycle are in absolute perfection.

OK. This is a conceptual error and a logical fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

If you did NOT jump to the conclusion that what I am doing is a conceptual error and a logical fallacy, and gave me the OPEN questions first, then all of this can very easily be explained.

You are drawing a line through the universe where such line doesn't exist. We call such lines categories. On the one side is "the universe" and on the other side is "humanity/society". On the one side you have perfection, on the other you have imperfection.

I am NOT and have NOT done that at all. But I will honestly and openly admit that on first glance it could very easily look like that.

But at the same time we are part OF the universe. We are made of the same stuff as the universe (quarks, leptons, electrons, energy).
So if we are made of the same stuff as the universe, and the universe is perfect but we aren't then...why is the universe perfect and we aren't?

Better, we are back to somewhat open questions again.

If we take the 'we' to always mean human beings here, then the reason we are NOT perfect is NOT because we are not perfect but because we, ourselves, say we are NOT perfect.

The Universe, Itself, does not give one iota if we behave like absolute devils and wipe ourselves out or if we behave like perfect angels and live forever more. The Universe is around for long enough that if we wipe ourselves out then another intelligent enough creature will come into being (evolve into existence), and then the Universe, Itself, will get what It wants from them.

Human beings KNOW intrinsically that it is WRONG to pollute the air and the water that we NEED for our continual survival, but we keep polluting anyway. We KNOW it is stupid and NOT the perfect thing to do. But we also KNOW we can improve ourselves, which we are doing in a certain particular way, although it is hard to recognize it some times. We are and have been "improving" (i use that term loosely) for the millions of years that human beings have evolved into existence. Human beings like ALL things within the Universe evolve and continue to evolve. It is not possible to stop changing, which is in simple terms just evolving. Where we are in the evolutionary process is in absolute perfection in line with the Universe, Itself.

Where we are NOW in this evolving process is in the KNOWING that we are NOT perfect and NEED to change, for the better. We, supposedly and are intelligent creature, is ALWAYS in its absolute perfect state no matter what part of the evolutionary process we are in. To be able to recognize and change for the better an "intelligent" creature like ourselves has to do WRONG to KNOW RIGHT and we also have to make mistakes to LEARN WHAT IS RIGHT.

The only reason the Universe is perfect and we say we are NOT perfect and just APPEAR to be not perfect, because that is the absolute perfection taking place. We NEED to be in this apparent NOT perfect absolute perfect position right HERE and NOW. In order to keep evolving the way we are. The reason we make mistakes/do wrong and thus behave "non perfectly" is because of the free will within us. We need to learn right from wrong so that we KNOW the difference. Our absolute free will then allows us to control our own lives, do things as we truly WANT, and be the Creator of ourselves and of the life that we ALL truly want to live in.

ALL of this is happening in absolute perfection, only we do NOT recognize and see that perfection always. We only say we are NOT perfect only because we THINK we are. NOT because we KNOW we are.

You seem to have a dualistic conception of how humanity fits in the big picture of the universe.

Yes admittedly it does appear that way. That is because the Universe, works that way. The Universe, Itself, is One solitary thing but it needs two different and separate things co-existing together to be able to exist and work in the way that it does.

There are so many examples of how the non-dual and dualistic ideas BOTH work together and in so many different ways.

ALL ideas like creation/evolution, nature/nurture, free will/determinism appear to be two different and distinct things but are in fact just one and the same thing co-existing and working in harmony together.

Either the universe and all of its contents (humans/humanity included) are perfect or they are not.

I hope I have somewhat successfully explained how Everything is perfect. And, how it is only we who says things are NOT perfect.

Just about all write appears as a paradox, with the definition of 'paradox' I chose from ONE dictionary being a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. That is just the nature of the Universe.

Further addressing of your points not needed until you tackle this. And if you have chosen a path of dualism for yourself - that is also fine

I do NOT choose I path for myself, and I certainly do NOT follow any of the human being made approaches to life.

There is NO label that you could put on me, yet.