The mechanism of creation, choosing

Starting off with an ad hom fallacy, followed by another strawman appeal. Work on it, please. Where is your evidence for your invisible sky-friend-creator? You assert it is real, but offer nothing solid, just logical fallacies. I hope you can do better than that. People making unsubstantiated claims on the internet are a dime a dozen these days. :yawn:

So I gather that either the conclusion beautiful must be forced by evidence, or beauty is a fantasy?

Try again. Facts are established by evidence. Show some for your invisible sky-friend. Anybody can create a beautiful fantasy. It's called escapism.

Indeed facts are established by evidence. But opinions are not established by evidence. And facts is all you understand, which is how your emotional life is empty.

Yeah. OK. I'm getting a better feel for your educational level.



Google "argumentum ad hominem." Your intellectual life will be the better for it, I promise.

It's not ad hominem, it is just taking your argumentation to it's logical conclusion that you don't do subjectivity.

Wrong. You're editorializing on my personal emotional life in a weak effort to discredit my previous reply and to toss out a red herring in response to the observation that you have no factual data to support your belief in an invisible, Bronze Age creator. I hope you can do better. Like, show us a rational, evidence-based reason to take your claim seriously.

Yeah that is simply competing objectivity against subjectivity, to the complete destruction of subjectivity.

Do you have anything other than empty rhetoric to offer? I can't even borrow money from the bank without having something more substantial to present as collateral. You're asking the bank to lend you an infinite amount of money on your word/emotions/imagination/fantasy alone. I hope you can do better than that. Show us something substantial, please.

That's my argumentation, and I'm not going to change it. You require evidence for subjective issues, and that means you compete objectivity against subjectivity to the complete and utter destruction of subjectivity.

Subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, so no wonder you have no idea about it.

So you admit that you have no credible evidence that a rational person would consider worth the time of day, and you have nothing better to suggest than blind faith and feel-good fanatises. OK. Thank you for your time. I hope you get better.

So you reject subjectivity altogether, and therefore you have no emotional life. Interesting.

The subjectivity-objectivity dichotomy is a red herring. Theists are essentially restricted in their thinking because they believe there exits "a world " which is a product of a purposeful active agent they call " the Creator". Evolution, and the late appearance of humans, shows beyond doubt that such "purpose" is a myth. Theists cannot get beyond their anthropomorphic concept of such an agent producing "things" such as themselves, like a potter producing pots. They probably don't see the significance that "thinghood" requires a "thinger" to classify it (even "a pot") as such. For example A brief consideration of biology should reveal that the "thing" we call "the heart" cannot be classified as such without reference to its function with respect to the whole organism. Similarly the "self" has no ontological status except with respect to societal structures, and is linguistically conditioned to function as a component of one or more of such structures. Obviously religious structures set up a specific type of conditioning which precludes or even proscribes analysis of that very process in order to protect the integrity of the structure. So the theist will not tolerate thinking outside of his conditioned box, for to do so would amount to an attack on his "self-integrity".

Of course you would think "purpose" is a myth, because evolutionists can't handle subjectivity, not in regards to God, and not in regards to people.

When an evolutionist says "the painting is beautiful", then they conceive of that as a statement of fact about a love for the way the painting looks existing in the electrochemical processess in the brain. So opinion = fact, social darwinism.

No. You don't understand that "subjectivity" is just that a word used by one group that disagrees with another. All we call human knowledge could be called "subjective" with respect to human attempts to predict and control what our species sees as "its life". Where there is agreement about "what observably works"...that can be called "objective". Anti-evolutionists are merely disagreeing with mainstream science because that science is antithetical to what works for "them" as defined by their belief systems. Religious anti-evolutionists are no different from the Pope who refused to look through Galileo's telescope for evidence of the superiority of a heliocentric model. Fortunately, the Catholics now seem to have moved on from that medieval mindset and largely accepted evolution. Alas other fundamental religious groups are clinging to pseudo-science and are therefore disadvantaging their children's ability to cope with the "modern" world.

But you are not going to agree with any of this elementary analysis because you have invested so much already in your parochial belief system. And surely you must realize that you don't have a cat in hell's chance of convincing anybody on this forum to think like you.

Again, you are only arguing everything is opinion, because evolutionists have first turned every issue into a matter of fact issue.

Having left no room for opinion, evolutionists became nazi eugenicists, regarding the worth of people as a matter of fact. Then after the holocaust as a solution to this problem, they declared that facts where subjective, postmodernism.

But the holocaust was a long time ago, or so they seem to think. So now evolutionists are moving back to regarding the worth of people as a matter of scientific fact again. For example Sam Harris with his scientific morality.

No I am arguing that everyTHING is functional with respect to general and local needs.Those needs include understanding of species diversity and genetic transmission which evolution fulfills. What we call scientific method has displaced the parochial opinions of religions with testable theories which require and acquire universal support. There is absolutely no requirement for a creative agent to account for the emergence of complex structural systems such as 'life'. Complex structures have been shown to occur spontaneously in dynamic reactions far from equilibrium.
Conscious 'creation' may be attributable to artists or thinkers but anthropomorphic gods have only a palliative function not a foundational one.
Nor does it require a deity to account for what we call "morality". The holocaust was an extreme manifestation of the tribalism we have in common with other primates. If we dehumanise another group then natural empathies ( a useful evolutionary mechanism) are overridden.

You are dehumanizing people by providing no place for subjectivity.

We already make subjective statements like "the painting is beautiful". These statements have an inherent creationist logic to them. The conclusion is arrived at by choosing, choosing between the words "beautiful" and "ugly" for instance. And the conclusion is in reference to the agency of a decision. The word beautiful refers to a love for the way the painting looks. This love is what chose the word beautiful. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well, which means it is just as logically valid to say it does exist, as to say it doesn't, just as it is equally logically valid to say the painting is beautiful as it is to say the painting is ugly. One must simply choose an answer.

What you are doing is cutting out the soul from the human being. Which is to say you cut out the choosing part, the spontaneity, that part the existence of which is a matter of opinion.

What we see in the brain, objectively as fact, is that it can turn out several different ways, and then it turns out one way in stead of the other, spontaneously. We do not see any soul. But then you do something weird and say that because we do not see a soul, therefore the question cannot be asked and answered about what made the decision turn out the way it did. But of course we simply have subjectivity for that, subjectivity is perfectly valid.

And the existence of God and the soul has always been understood as a matter of faith, opinion, which is why the word faith is almost interchangeable with the word religion.

And you don't know basic logic. Not so interesting.

You are playing word games without understanding the contextual nature of communication. I have NOT precluded the use of words like 'subjectivity' . Indeed the use of words at all is part of the essence of being 'human' . The point is that words, like currency, on!y have exchange value in context and not an absolute value. The fallacy of religions is to attempt to counter that fluidity by attributing absolutist principles within a concept of 'Holy Writ'. This is merely another form of 'word magic' akin to spells, mantras and other hypnotics. In that respect, the word 'soul' can play an entertaining role like an avatar in virtual reality scenarios.
'