Creationist theory

Well I have to say that on balance what you present of Urantia still looks like a materialist philosophy.The spirit is a thought-adjuster, which seems like a machine. Then there is the mind which can make decisions, but which has a predetermined goal of becoming like a thought-adjuster.The "first decision" seems to have been racist (fleeing from the inferior), further indicating that this is more a materialist philosphy, where the value is inherent to the material, in stead of the value being spiritual.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia
following on from before...Detection and observation in context of the double-slit experiment, basicly means to introduce another point of decision. That is to say, we could replace a human being observing, with a randomizer observing, and we would get the same results, since observing in this context only means deciding.So when there is an observer there is another point of decision in the "future", as viewed from the point where the photon came from. Obviously it would be difficult to decide a future, when there's another point of decision in that future.So I should predict that when observation starts that the decision on where the photon ends up is broken of, and only the future of a single wavelength is decided in stead. This explains how we can observe the photon. So there are 2 testable predictions made here:- a human being observing will give the same results as a randomizer observing, because observing in this sense means deciding- when we start observing we will never immediately see a photon being detectedAs before, one should only look at above theory as a straightforward explanation based on a strong assumption that there are several possible outcomes by same startingconditions. That is to say, if we assume it as true that there are alternative possible results, then reasonably the rest as above follows from that. It would not be interesting in my opinion to discuss alternative cause and effect explanations for the same phenomena, it would be more interesting to discuss alternative explanations which are also based on the assumption of alternative possible results.What I mean is, don't respond if you are going to give an alternative explanation that is completely in terms of predetermination / cause and effect.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well is the toughtadjuster the same in everyone, or do some people have a better thoughtadjuster as others? And is this thoughtadjuster heritable?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

It seems the thoughtadjuster is an objectively measurable element.Does the thoughtadjuster have a will of it's own, choosing things?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Yes professor Davison, when you enter my thread you should at the very least give a meaningful comment about the subject at issue.Since you frequently mention Einstein, why don't you comment on the creationist view of wave-particle duality, which duality was Einstein's main pre-occupation in science.Creationist theory asserts that the probabilitywave of a thing collapses, and consequently comes to behave as a particle, when it reaches a point of decision.So in the double-slit experiment;Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia- the light behaves as a wave, creating an interference pattern- if one were to put a detector at a slit, and observe the which way information from the detector, the light would behave as a particle- if one were to put a detector at a slit, but not observe the which-way information from the detector, then the light would behave as a wave- if one were to put a detector at a slit, and attach a randomizer to the detector ( a device which chooses to turn a light on or off if a photon is detected at the slit ) then the light will behave as a particleSo to say, creationism asserts that when a probabilitywave of a thing finds a decision in it's future, be it a decision of a randomizer or decision of a human observer, then the probabilitywave will collapse, and the thing will behave as a particle.Why this is all creationist, is because any decision has a spiritual owner. Now please take a wild guess, about whether or not this is all true to fact.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Page introuvableAbove is some paper talking about free behaviour (anticipation) as a basic property of physical systems. It's a complicated paper, but one might still get the gist of it by a cursory reading.Freedom is essential to creationist theory, as the act of creation is free, as explained in post 1 of this thread.The paper seems to be lacking explicit reference to the spiritual as the owners to decisions, in stead it suggests things like pleasure and pain as functional owners (a finality), so that would be heaven and hell in creationist terms. Anyway this "pleasure" the researcher talks about seems to be essentially outside the physical system, so it is spiritual in that sense of being outside the physical.Go and read this paper if you want to develop, and be more aware of your knowledge about free behaviour, which knowledge is much oppressed by Darwinism for most people.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Obviously these kind of equations allow for alternatives, and the freedom is between the material alternatives. On top of that one might well suppose that there are spiritual alternatives, such as pleasure and pain, love and hate, good and bad, which may look the same materially.As explained in post 1, at a point where there is love, there might also be hate. The material doesn't predetermine whether or not there is love or hate. And we all know this is true, that people who do hateful things are guilty, because they could have done a nice thing in stead, given the exactsame material circumstances.So at the flip of a coin one may choose heads, because one likes heads, or choose heads because one dislikes heads, and so the decision between heads or tails may be based on like or dislike, or other.And when the coin is tossed it is decided heads or tails, and that decision in turn has it's spiritual owner, which we typically refer to as "chance" or God, but really we generally don't have the ultrasensitivity to relate to the spiritual owner of such a slight decision.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu