> 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... >
