> Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, 
> couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the 
> creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* 
> thinking...

Not without redefining every important characteristic in most
definitions of the word "creator" that I know.  My process of
perception effects the world I know, but that reality only effects me.
 I believe that there are people outside myself who are interacting
with the world also.  I may have missed your point completely.  I can
create a song and be the creator of that, but when I see a tree I am
not creating the tree.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> <snip>  Doesn't the idea of a creation
> > > infer that there must have been a creator, an
> > > intelligent designer?
> > 
> > Absolutely not.  This is completely fallacious.  There can be a
> > primacy of existence itself without the need for a creator.  If this
> > fallacy was valid you would need to imagine a creator for the creator
> > in an infinite regress.  I stop at creation itself without the need 
> to
> > imagine a creator.
> > 
> Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, 
> couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the 
> creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* 
> thinking...
>


Reply via email to