The mechanism of creation, choosing

I get the sense there are several sock puppets floating around a2k as of late. Anyone else get that?

A-yep.

Do sock puppets have any 'choice' ?

I'll write up a funding proposal for the research...

I don't get the motivation. Are they posing to poison the well? Feel that their voice isn't loud enough? I can't figure it out.

I think this an attempt to redress the balance by a "thinking" Muslim by a misguided simplistic appeal to aesthetics, given that he is up against the base iconoclastic and sociopathic behavior of many of his co-religionists. Unfortunately "next life - ism" aka "soul-ism" has no chance against the success of scientific method in enhancing this life, which is the only one we can all agree to be part of.

Logic is not just cause and effect, any set of consistent rules is logic. And the logic of subjectivity is simpler than the rules of tic-tac-toe.

X has a possibility in the future
this possibility is made the present or not, what is called a decision.
then there is the result of the decision

Then the question what made the decision turn out the way it did,
can ony be answered by choosing the answer.

Those are basically the rules of subjectivity.

That is the how saying the painting is beautiful is equally logically valid to saying the painting is ugly. That is how opinions are arrived at, expression of emotion, with free will, thus choosing the answer spontaneously.

The rules for obtaining a fact are quite different. That is cause and effect. There is the moon and a book about the moon containing the facts about it in the form of words, pictures and mathematics. In essence the way the moon is forces what ends up in the book. Facts are in essence a 1 to 1 representation of a thing, a model.

So in creationism there is complete acceptance of opinion in regards to the creator category, the agency of decisions, and complete acceptance of facts, in regards to the creation category, what is chosen.

According to creationism all creation, all material, could alternatively not be. The entire universe could cease to exist, just as well that the universe started to exist. It is chosen.

And if you get deeper into this, then it means that material consists of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are derived from pure mathematics, and pure mathematis is mathematics which is ordered by the zero. The universal constants are part of this ordering in regards to zero, they cannot be otherwise than they are, unless of course much of the entire universe is gone. A universe which is exhaustively described by just 0, does not have any universal constants. So it means the theory of everything is this sort of mathematics. Anything material which exists, or could exist, in principle one can make a 1 to 1 mathematical representation of it.

Word salad noted. Where's your evidence for your creator?

Well you are demonstrably playing word games, by making the meaning of words arbitrarily based on popularly agreed on meanings. Yet the most popular meaning of words is creationist, but then this agreed upon meaning is just discarded for supposed "expert" agreed upon meanings.

I am not playing wordgames because my argumentation relies on logic. One can use different names for each principle in the conceptual structure, translate it into any language, it is still the same underlaying structure.

The soul chooses. That is the function of the soul in the logic. The soul is in reference to the owner of all decisions past present and future of a human being. One can name it differently, there still is the obvious issue of what makes a decision turn out the way it does for any man. The soul is the answer to that question. You simply pretend the question does not exist, because your "expert" meaning for the word choosing, uses the logic of sorting. Then obviously the sorting criteria, and the data to sort is what make the result of the "choice" turn out the way it does. Then obviously there is no need for a soul.

You're just another atheist scumbag who rejects subjectivity altogether.

Syamsu you have to understand something. When you refer to the "soul" it's like tossing some vague undefined term with a **** load of cultural baggage. So we have NO CLUE what you are meaning when you use it. Everyone arrives at a different conclusion.

Speaking on FBMs behalf here, the soul is not something that can be verified. Where is it? What is it? How does it relate to anything? If you are using the "soul" term just to mean, person, identity or self. Then what good is it to keep referring to something that can be easily misconstrue with some other definition? Why not just say, person, identity or self instead?

However; I get the impression that you are trying to use the soul and sneak in some other unverified definition and claim it's true because you say it's true. Why should we, or anyone accept that, just because you say it? So why not take the time, and point out how the soul is verified so that we can have a better understanding of what you are talking about. If you can't do that, then everything you have said here is just rambling meaningless nonsense.

I defined soul more than once in referring to it. The soul chooses. That is the traditional understanding of the soul. As you might read on the wiki on free will in the section metaphysical libertarianism, an unevidenced spirit or soul chooses.

And this is further made clear by the universally known belief that after somebody dies their soul is judged by God. The soul is judged as making the decisions in life that they made.

So how can you be so moronic that you say you don't understand when I provide the definition more than once? That's because of cognitive dissonance on your part.

And I also explained more than once that the existence of the soul is arrived at by choosing the conclusion that it does exist. To say it does not exist, is an equally valid conclusion, just as that to say the painting is beautiful and the painting is ugly are equally valid conclusions. It is believed to exist, by faith.

So once again, that is all just cognitive dissonance on your part. You don't do subjectivity, you only do objectivity. You have no idea about expressing your emotions with free will, spontaneously, choosing an answer.

And I know that you will be moronic and then confuse fact with opinion, and say that I am rejecting obtaining facts through evidence forcing to a conclusion. Creationism accepts both fact and opinion, but in seperate categories. Facts are only relevant to the creation categories, which is chosen, and opinions are only relevant to the creator category, which chooses.

The spiritual domain chooses which way the material domain turns out.

By this line of reasoning then something is valid no matter how absurd it is.

So you are wrong. There is no soul, instead you become a flying pink elephant when you die. It's true too just because I am choosing it to be true.

No asshole you are just confusing fact with opinion. You are saying what is good, loving and beautiful must be a fact, otherwise the earth going round the sun is not a fact. There are 2 separate categories for opinion and fact in creationism.

Where is the fact that the soul exists? It doesn't exist. The ONLY thing you have is your opinion that it exists, but that doesn't mean it exists. So tell me where is the evidence that the soul exists?

We all play word games and logic is just one of them. As FBM has pointed out you are not offering any incontraversial evidence for purposeful creation, let alone ' a creator'. Neither logic nor the apparent human ability to choose establishes such evidence. You own rationalisation of your religious conditioning will not establish communicability of your axioms.

BTW the phrase 'underlying structure' looks suspicially like 'absolute reality' in disguise. No amount of pseudo mathematical Mumbo-Jumbo can establish such a concept, and mathematics itself is even thought by some to be a function of human physiology.

Asshole, it is an opinion that the soul exists. The opinion that it doesn't exist is just as valid. Like the painting is beautiful and the painting is ugly are equally as valid.

All questions about what the agency of a decision is can neccessearily only be answered by choosing the answer.

When saying the painting is beautiful then that asserts the opinion that there exists a love for the way the painting looks in the heart of that person saying it. This love is choosing the word beautiful in expression of emotions with free will. Therefore the existence of the love is a matter of opinion, which means it is equally valid to say it does exist, as it is to say it doesn't exist.

And facts are another matter moron. I already explained that 3 times or more. Facts do not apply to the agency of a decision, facts apply to the way the decision turns out. Only facts are forced by evidence, facts are a 1 to 1 model.

Therefore the spiritual chooses the way the material turns out.

You just argued that facts are just social constructs of agreement, and now you are arguing for incontrovertible evidence. That's perfidity.

None of that social construct as fact in creationism. There are indeed absolute facts in regards to the creation, which are 100 percent accurate 1 to 1 models of a thing. Fully exhaustive, all else is wrong, facts. And the nature of these facts is mathematical. Mathematics ordered by zero can fully and exhaustively describe all that exists in creation with 100 percent accuracy. It is the theory of everything. Creatio ex nihilo, and ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing. That is mathematics ordered by zero where the totality of the universe equals zero. As in the principle an action has an equal and opposite reaction, so that the totality is 0. One can have something, action and reaction, and in totality have zero.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

27"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.…

Work on it.