Yes, indeed, and nothing more, on the OP account. It put the creator on the left, away from the facts. Showing that god is only a concept, not a fact. That god does not exist.
Or the OP has shown nothing.
1 Like
If “oh my God” was an unconscious habitual expression, then how is it part of reasoning? What are you suppose to be reasoning at the point of utterance?
Yes, just as you or I are “concepts”…?
We are more than that too, I think. And, I rather suspect, so is God. 
1 Like
What would be evidence that God is the creator? What is the detail of the facts?
It’s not my theory. To my eye the OP says nothing of significance.
Reasoning consists of fact and opinion.
Although I don’t support it, it is common to interpret love as should exist, and hate as should not exist. So then to say “I hate eating vegetables, therefore I eat vegetables”, would be irrational. So that is the common way in which emotions are rationalized.
But in my opinion the subjective words should just directly refer to the emotion, and not to should and should not. Because the whole point of subjectivity, is to provide the link to what is subjective.
It is your subjective opinion that subjective opinions are unimportant. Which is unthinking, because very obviously you need subjectivity for religion, politics, relationships etc. Subjectivity is a big deal. When you marginalize subjectivity, then you are very obviously going to get wonky subjective opinions, systematically.
A decision is made, some say the decision was made by God, others say it wasn’t. Either opinion is equally logically valid. That is the rule for subjectivity. It does not say God is only a concept, it says God is subjective, as like emotions and personal character are also subjective. Emotions and personal character also belong in the creator category, because they are defined in terms of being on the side of choosing things. So when you say God is not real, you can just as easily say emotions aren’t real, and personal character (like courage) isn’t real. It is a logically valid opinion.
The logic of subjectivity shows that what is subjective creates what is objective, by decision. So the subjective part of reality has the power to choose what ends up in the objective part of reality, so that is very significant power for what is subjective.
I can choose left or right. LRRRRRLLLRRRLLL. The subjective spirit chooses, and determines which way the objective reality turns out.
Word salad. You listed a few different things under two headings. In the process you put the creator in the list of things that are not facts, but opinions.
The muddle is yours.
It’s functional logic, and the same logic that everyone uses in conversation.
What is? What you presented was two lists, not a series of functions. Nor is there one “logic that everyone uses”.
You put the creator in opinion, not in fact. Well done.
In practise everyone generally uses the same logic of fact and opinion in conversation. Which is not the same as everyone having the same idea about what the logic of fact and opinion is on the intellectual level.
My gold stool scenario doesn’t seem to be having the impact I’d hoped for (reproduced below for reference). I changed the variable to demathematize the point. There seems to be a fear of numbers which gets in the way of full comprehension. 
Folk use fact and opinion in conversation. “logic”? not so much.
Again, you put the creator in the group with the other subjective opinions, and juxtaposed those to fact, and objectivity. Nice work.
Opinion is too subjective to be reasoning. There is some sort of connection between subjectivity and reasoning. But the connection is very weak, which is perhaps to say that you would use reasoning to support your subjectivity. Nothing more.
Reasoning itself has rationality and objectivity in nature, which has little to do with opinion or subjectivity.
You hate eating vegetables is not the reason, you eat vegetables. You eat vegetables, because vegetable is good for your health. Or some other rational or practical reasons could have been the main reason you eat vegetables.
Emotions don’t get rationalised. But emotions can be motives for your actions. Your example above seems to be telling that your emotion of hating vegetables was not the reason you eat vegetables, which seems to suggest you had another reason you eat vegetables.
There is no link between your emotion and your action for rationalisation.
Again, very obviously for doing politics, religion, relationships, basic knowledge of subjectivity is required. When you focus on subjective issues like that, then there would be more subjectivity in the reasoning. And that would also involve still objective issues like organization of decision-making processes.
What is the basic knowledge of subjectivity in detail? What is it, and how does it work?
It was actually already completely explained in the original post, so I am just repeating myself. The spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. That is the basic understanding. What is subjective chooses, and subjective means identified with a chosen opinion. And because choosing is also the mechanism for creation, it is creationism.
It sounds like some form of paganism, rather than philosophical idea. You bring in “the spirit”, and say it chooses opinion. I am not sure where the spirit comes from. What is “the spirit”? Does everyone have “the spirit”? Or just you?
Ok, let’s suppose you have the spirit. Do you mean it is not “you”, but “the spirit” chooses your opinion for you?
For efficient reasoning, then you require the general name for all that is subjective, which is spiritual. Same as for objectvity there is the word material. It was all already explained, you can just interpret it straightforwardly. The most difficult part in understanding creationism, and subjectivity, is that decisions are spontaneous. Any misunderstanding or disagreement with creationism, it always comes down to people not wanting to accept the fact that decisions are spontaneous.
Not all subjectivity is spiritual. Spirituality is fine if you are happy with just being spiritual, but it won’t tell you much about the world and other minds.
If your subjective ideas need to interact with other minds in the world, you need to seek the common ground with others via discourses and objectivity.
It looks as though locking oneself up in one’s won subjectivity and spirituality will not help one to learn and understand much about the world and other minds.