Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid that most of your points after point 1 assumes that this Source actually IS a sentient being and not just some mindless natural phenomena. For instance, only a sentient being can 'dictate a correct mindset or development.' And only a sentient being can 'intend' to have information kept or passed on.
- If there is a Source of all creation, that is itself not created, and it has defined what it is about and what it is not about then logically anything that contradicts the Source's definitions is false.
I agree with you but again consider that IF #1 is proven to be true then it would stand to reason that there is level of sentience to the source of creation BECAUSE “it [the source of creation] has defined what it is about and what it is not about.” If the source of creation has at least the ability to define itself, and has actually in reality done so at some point in history, then it would stand to reason that it has some level of sentience; whatever that may mean. Again, this is only if. I.e. I am not putting constraints on the conclusion of step #1. The other steps rely on coming to a conclusion about step #1. The same is true for any experiment. The rest of the process relies on the first step.
The next challenge for a human would be, “how does sentience on the level of something that can create universes and realities communicate?” Thus, the points of 2 and on rely on one trying to determine the reality of step #1 in the postive or the negative.
YET, if is proven that the source of creation has not defined itself and what it is about and IF it is found that either the source cannot or will not define itself or even that humans will never have the capacity to understand the definition, no matter what they do, the other points are void of reason to investigate if this is a known fact. A person may do it just for the thrill of it but other than there is no pressure to do so.
For example, let's say that planets have the ability to communicate and they do so using gravity, surface events such as weather, volcanos, earthquakes, etc. A human being see all of these things and never come to the conclusion that the actual planet is communicating. Further, the humans who do conclude this is the case may never fully understand the intent of the communication. It could even be that the planet is not communicating with the life that resides on it. Maybe, these are events meant to only comminicate with other planets. It could also be that planets are simply not communicating and are simply mindless rocks with and without stuff on them. How someone manages themselves in the system they find themselves may differ based on what they find about what the reality is about the above presented example.
Last edited: