Logic of fact and opinion, creationism

General Philosophy
1

My analysis of the rules used in statements of fact and opinion, in conversation, shows that creationism explains the logic of fact and opinion.

Creationism: What is subjective, creates what is objective, by decision.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion

2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

subjective = identified with a chosen opinion

objective = identified with a model of it

For example, God (subjective) created the universe (objective). Or, the baby (objective) was born from love (subjective).

The most important aspect of this logic is to conceive of decisions as being spontaneous. Which means that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment that the decision is made. If you understand that, then from there all the rest falls into place pretty much automatically.

But if you conceive of decisions in terms of it being a process of selection of options, where values are used to evaluate the options with, then the logic does not work out. Which is not to say that selection is wrong, it just means that selection is not the same as choosing. This explains why the logic of fact and opinion is currently unknown, because people prefer to conceive of choosing in terms of selection of options.

In creationism you just view everything in the universe in terms of it being possible, that it can be, or not be, by decision. And then the spirit in which the decision is made is identifed with a chosen opinion.

The Grok AI analyzed creationism, and found the logic is robust, and consistent with the logic used in conversation, and consistent with hard science / physics. But Grok only said it was consistent with science, after it was pointed out to Grok, that science is limited to facts, so that subjective statements about decision-makers are outside of science.

Subjective opinions like about beauty, are not science, but the subjective statements do not inhibit science with the creationist logic on which the subjective statements are based. Which is because physics does not identify any decision-maker for events that can turn out one way or another in the moment. So that leaves it open for the concept of subjectivity to identify any decision-maker.

2

It seems to me you are not describing “a logic”. You are describing one theological way of dealing with relations.

The claim that understanding that decision is a momentary event (that is literally what decision-making is, in the brain, anyway, with plenty of run-up which is not decision-making but decision-informing.. deliberation) would make the rest fail into place fails. I grok the concept, and running with it, I cannot see any connection between this and some kind of Creationist thinking. Onward..

It’s hard to see what the over-arching thread of argument is here. It seems to boil down to this:

Decisions are made by a decision-maker, who is subjective in their decsision making.

Facts are states of affairs which inform decisions, and are not party to them.

If you could provide Grok’s reasoning (in your own words, to avoid being deleted) that would be helpful. What you’ve described is decidedly illogical.

3

Logic is just rules. You don’t obey the rules of creationism when you assert creationism is theological, because in creationism God is subjective, so you can also choose the opinion God is not real.

If choosing is defined in terms of selection of options, then the decision refers back to the values that were used to evaluate the options with. Only if choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, can the link be made to a subjective decision-maker. In dictionaries choosing is always defined in terms of selection, and not spontaneity.

Decisions create the new information of which way the decision turned out. So that is why decision is the mechanism for creation.

Grok’s reasoning was of no special significance.

4

Okay. I cannot see this going very far. What you’re putting forward isn’t hanging together to give a coherent point. I can only distill that this is your crux:

Which is clearly untenable in the face of constant decision-making by subjective beings, all the time, everywhere.

Can you at least level, and say whether you are trying to support Creationist theology ? If you’re not, I cannot see a reason behind this thread. Not because Creationism is the only reason to talk about Logic (particularly, it’s own) but because, again, none of this serves a coherent point that can be applied anywhere but in trying to have you clarify it.

5

This is to establish the logic of fact and opinion, especially the concept of subjectivity / opinion.

You don’t make a coherent counter argument. You present no competing functioning logic of how subjectivity works, without decisions being spontaneous. You just assert it, based on nothing.

6

Ok. What I’ve said is you haven’t presented a coherent argument. There is no room for a coherent counter except to point out the gaps. I’ve done so.

You have failed to do what you intended is all I can say. Probably why only I have bitten.

7

That’s not how it works. I present rules for facts, and rules for opinions. So now if you want to criticize that, then you say, oh this rule is wrong, instead it is some other way. And if you want to say the conceptual scheme does not cohere, then you must show it. Because very obviously, this scheme is totally integrated.

8

They weren’t rules, and they are not coherent. I am not obliged to do anything but state the gaps in your post.

If you wish to make anyone pay attention, you’ll need to address what was said. Take care

9

The rules are stated: objective = identified with a model, subjective = identified with a chosen opinion

objective only applies to creations, what is chosen
subjective only applies to creators, what does the choosing

Those are the rules stated. And obviously this if fully integrated, and your complaint about lack of coherence, is based on absolutely nothing.

10

Ok. Well as far as I’m concerned this isn’t making sense - Those are claims.

Oh well. I hope you’re able to get some interaction.

11

To say a glass is on the table. It presents a model in the mind of a glass that is on the table, if the model matches with what is being modelled, if there actually is a glass on the table, then the statement of fact is valid. If not, then it’s invalid. So those are the rules for a statement of fact. etc.