Xflighenjoyer
Regular
I don't fully buy this but i think it is interesting, I made the argument:
proposition 1: in order for things to exist, they need to be perceived or knowable, otherwise we cannot be sure of anything, for there could just be a shadow universe that can't interact with ours at all.
If something needs to be observed or be known to exist, there was a time before life, it still existed, thus there must be something to observe. I don’t per se agree because there is a dependence which I am not sure of.
Let’s continue with this argument:
Things existed before life and they needed to be observed, so there must have been an observer,
The process of creation existed and needed observation,
There was an observer of creation.
Is there a logical conclusion from this to an all powerful creator, perhaps.
This observer must have observed the status of nonexistence,
This observer was the first thing,
This observer’s observing is why things exist, (the next conclusion is a little less a sequitur)
This observer’s thought is the dictation of what is
This observer is all powerful,
That’s what I can purely deduce from the first, but I can do other theories (even if i’m not purely sure).
Let’s say that things exist by knowledge or observation. Therefore, there must be an observer that knows everything, and if it is observed it is in his mind which he may change as he pleases. Perhaps.
i'm not so sure about this part:
Let us assume that this observer defines everything by his observation, only him being necessarily true, this being knowable because there is logical proof for him but not for material,
He defined the universe,
He created it.
Yeah this is kinda a stretch.
proposition 1: in order for things to exist, they need to be perceived or knowable, otherwise we cannot be sure of anything, for there could just be a shadow universe that can't interact with ours at all.
If something needs to be observed or be known to exist, there was a time before life, it still existed, thus there must be something to observe. I don’t per se agree because there is a dependence which I am not sure of.
Let’s continue with this argument:
Things existed before life and they needed to be observed, so there must have been an observer,
The process of creation existed and needed observation,
There was an observer of creation.
Is there a logical conclusion from this to an all powerful creator, perhaps.
This observer must have observed the status of nonexistence,
This observer was the first thing,
This observer’s observing is why things exist, (the next conclusion is a little less a sequitur)
This observer’s thought is the dictation of what is
This observer is all powerful,
That’s what I can purely deduce from the first, but I can do other theories (even if i’m not purely sure).
Let’s say that things exist by knowledge or observation. Therefore, there must be an observer that knows everything, and if it is observed it is in his mind which he may change as he pleases. Perhaps.
i'm not so sure about this part:
Let us assume that this observer defines everything by his observation, only him being necessarily true, this being knowable because there is logical proof for him but not for material,
He defined the universe,
He created it.
Yeah this is kinda a stretch.
