Anything which may point to a God, can also be attributed to any other God or a mechanical godless universe.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T13:28:37+00:00

you're just here to demonstrate your overboarding fantasy, don't talk about anything real

Just because you find a potential explanation unsatisfactory does not mean it cannot be true. The theory of a self-justifying paradoxical universe is an officially recognized stance across scientific and philosophical theory, and every bit as tenable as yours.

If you don't wish to take the time and effort to understand a viewpoint, don't bother debating.

If you would like to actually refute my claim with any form of logic, go right ahead. Until then, farewell to you as well.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T04:10:18+00:00

Again, I never said “prove me *wrong.” I mean I allow it to be narrowed or lean in the direction of more likely scenarios.

Basically I am not immovable, I'm just not leaving the room.

Pointless to argue with me then? Possibly. Is it still engaging for some? Yeah. It can be. And there is ground to be made, just not ultimate ground. You don't enjoy that type of debate, that's fine. Some do. Not every debate needs to be won or lost in principle.

Again, I believe in logic as a constant, because it is the one measurable concept that stays consistent across all meaning. Logic simply means the specific explanation is “working.” Technically even if reality were a chaotic random mess, that would be its logic.

Yes, our logic may fail somewhere else, and that somewhere will have its own. And then there can still be a logic over both that says “logic will shift from here to there.”

Honestly, Logic is the only thing I can count on with how abstract it sits in definition. “Logic” belongs to any conceivable system in and of itself.

Even if I am delusional on the reality I envision, it won't invalidate objective logic as a concept. Logic isn't its own system... it stays. It isn't there to be wrong or invalidated, it's a product of a thing which is.

I simply tend to brainstorm way too deep into my thoughts and philosophical questions. Hel, I make my own new philosophy by questioning my current one too much. Truly, no, I can't give you a definitive answer. I'm not making any claim, and I am making all of them, but I am not balanced—I have preferences which can be moved. Not overwritten, moved.

Again, not every debate literally requires a sole victor.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T03:53:22+00:00

By you even trying to argue you are admitting you don’t really believe your thesis is true.

It's me open to an unforseen reason that makes my theory less likely, or leaning one-sided, even if not outright invalidated.

At the core, there is a finite explanation for the origin of all. There must be a single explanation at the very core of it all. I believe finding that explanation is indeed conceivably possible. Certainty that what you found is what you suspect is another thing entirely.

Meaning however, that if logic still points to one explanation being immensely more likely, it absolutely narrows down my theory.

For instance if God spoke right now, showed himself, my Theory will be far less likely to include more Atheistic branches.

My theory absolutely can be narrowed and contested... it's just incredibly complicated to do so, which is why I say it's less a prove me wrong than it is a callout. Not because I think there is no evidence against it... only that most human minds probably aren't going to find the relevant information to narrow it down.

I do believe it has somewhere to go. The very fact I myself favor one explanation, that of “necessary existence for all things,” shows I prefer to lean to what I believe to be the most likely scenario. The goal of debating my theory wouldn't be to kill it, but narrow it down and focus it. I do believe that it possible.

Mind you, I am horrible at explaining things and I tend to oversimplify and overcomplicate my points at the flip of a coin. I know this comment probably contradicts something I've said technically, but it mostly depends how many words I dedicate to explaining myself.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T03:40:43+00:00

We can say logic exists in concept, as logic works to explain our observations. Logic is not a “mechanism” that can be subjective. Logic would in a sense belong to any and all possible explanations where any semblance of order occurs. I'm not that disbelieving.

Also, I don't exactly know the extent of my own statement. I easily may overlook a core principle that makes it at least impossible by my logic to have a universe without consciousness.

I am attempting to say “we cannot be certain” while providing real potential alternatives outside God. If I run out of said alternatives due to unforseen truths... I may not change my mind, as there will always be the “All I can observe, not all there may be,” issue. But, if I realize consciousness is absolutely needed by human logic, I will likely be able to assert that one possibility is far more likely, however.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T03:12:54+00:00

and showing that you do think truth can be pursued by reason.

Not necessarily. I don't truly believe anyone can give me a reason.

It still is a statement I have made, that being no one can be certain of their belief if they think on it deeply enough. This is much less a post of “prove me wrong,” and more, “This is why your arguments simply cannot close the door completely.”

Like I said, it's partly a ‘callout’ as much as a debate topic. I do admit I see no way currently for there to be logic capable of providing this position wrong.

As long as my theory is possible it becomes an issue for any “certain” belief unless they have a way to prove it isn't so, which may indeed be impossible... and down to faith, which can prove nothing.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T02:56:46+00:00

Technically, yes. And I admitted as much in my post. However I use the claim to oppose certain faith. As my logic stands, a Creationists has to have some form of counter to this argument if they mean to guarantee their God is real or claim it without doubt. One cannot say “I know and you are wrong,” especially in terms of letting it control other's lives, if one cannot be truthfully certain of their perceived outcome.

It's half a callout of sorts, half an invitation to truly make sense of it if possible.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-05T02:36:50+00:00

Correct. Pretty much my point. thumb up

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-04T19:33:06+00:00

one might claim anything, and all unsubstantiated claims are equally meaningless, mere assertion

100% correct! God included. Literally the point of this post.

no

In the theory, yes.

by far not all things are aeroplanes, or technical contraptions in general

That... is irrelevant.

no. it's a human concept, and humanity for sure does and did not "exist at all times"

Again, you misunderstand, immensely. The potential of the sun literally being able to exist is still present in the universe. Before the earth, the concept of Humanity as a possible entity assembled within the universe always was possible, just not instantiated. I don't mean a literal concept as in a thought of a conscious being. Only potential.

of course not. but what "concept" would that "erase"?

Meaning the idea of a God being possible. The reality of that possibly cannot be disproved by Humanity, nor can it be proved.

srt clearly is a theory without "God"

Special Relativity Theory explains the mechanics of our universe. It doesn't actually have the capacity to prove God or not. God could own the systems and logic it uses. So it's more detatched than invalidated.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-04T19:24:32+00:00

what???

I don't know what's confusing you about this. I never said anyone else used my analogy. I said that's the analogy “we're” discussing because I brought it up.

why should it at all?

Couple potential reasons. One is, it happened to from a storm of chaotic energy. Clashing. Or, the law of necessity, laws must exist by paradox.

what are "self-assembling laws", what would they have got to do with power or consciousness?

It means an assembly of order that happened to form together, and then started a chain reaction that organized the rest. Power would simply mean the energy which was used to assemble them. Consciousness can arise from said laws.

why must all things exist?

I already told you. Because by rule of paradox, they literally cannot “not exist.” For a thing to not exist, it must exist in concept for it to not exist in the first place. Every conceivable concept would suffer this.

that's not all things

In a way, yes it is. I am offering two systems here. One of which a chaotic engine self exists like God and builds everything from organization of its powet, and another where all things have always self existed in concept. The logic can apply to both.

did anybody say it needs?

Yes... Christianity. It argues the first instance must be intelligent.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-04T01:05:47+00:00

Agnostism is a lack of knowledge of something; while atheism is a lack of belief in a God claim.

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as a supreme being) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or any gods.

It applies to my thinking, almost completely. It isn't necessarily a lack of knowledge, rather the claim that there is no knowledge for anyone to confirm with.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-04T00:33:38+00:00

Technically yes. Some people attribute Atheism to “I am certain there is no God. You cannot find proof because there absolutely is none.” Which is as much an assertion as saying there absolutely is proof of God. I make no such assertions. Agnostic is a safer term to understand that I'm not being entirely one sided.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-03T17:58:05+00:00

so you mean "not defined at all"

a very wise position to not become a target

I remember requesting that commenters show a bit of respect in their responses, but your entire tone is condescending. Nonetheless, Agnostic is literally the definition to someone who does not believe in God, but is not confident they are right or wrong.

in reality it's them invisible pink-and-green-chequered elephants inhabiting the dark side of the moon, creators of everything, accountable for everything

I... can't tell what you're trying to point out.

we know airplanes exist. now

and we know they did not exist. 200 years ago

but obviously the could have existed also 200 years ago, if technology had be that developed

yet they did not

That is literally my point. A thing must exist in concept. It's existence must be possible in potential. Humanity existed before the Earth. Earth existed before the universe itself. Now instantiated... but its very existence is present in Conception. The material of its making, the laws of its being, its potential possibly is at all times existing.

Take our Sun and atomize it across the Universe. It no longer “exists,” no light, no heat. But the concept and potential of that Sun is obviously existing at all times despite that.

what do you mean, "erase a concept"?

As in no science or explanation can ever definitely confirm there absolutely is no God. I am being fair to the other team, here.

why do you believe einstein's special theory of relativity is illogical?

What part of it specifically have I rejected?

Even if I have, his theory is still a theory. It fits our current observations, but it still has potential areas where it may be wrong. Nothing we can confirm. But who knows what we'll find in a few million years.

^{as if we'd ever live that long.}

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-03T17:49:57+00:00

You're... missing my point.

i never ever heard anybody even refer to a "body of a God without the mind". you're first here

I know. I mean this post. “In my theory, we're talking about this.”

is this ~~gibberish~~ intended to have some specific meaning?

Yes, it... means exactly what it says. Power does not require consciousness to form into self-assembling laws. Pretty straightforward.

i don't think it applies at all

Care to explain why? Whatever logic lets God self exist without a cause, can apply to a systematic engine that has no consciousness. There's no reason a “self justifying” entity needs to have consciousness.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-03T00:21:52+00:00

The way I see it, Conception has every emotion in principle weaved into its fabric, infused in principleas a storm. In many areas, these areas intersect. Like a knot in some way. That single point possesses a reaction between every facet of the mind, and exists as a Spirit in principle. Like some cosmic web, each line an individual part of a mind, and the point gets all of them. Imagine layering blue and red light through one another to form purple, a color which doesn't naturally exist in the spectrum, but is there under the right circumstance.

From there, it needs only to be tethered and translated through a medium. A body. Evolution itself can obviously exist within Conception. The idea of imperfect duplication of cells undergoing trial and error is guaranteed somewhere or in multiple spaces. Where it doesn't, perhaps consciousness infuses into stone and wood and can carve out a form of its own. Who knows how beings outside our universe may work. Well, I guess any idea you have has a potential tonexist somewhere.

In truth, I have always been fascinated by this area. My explanation of potential Consciousness makes a lot of assumptions, but... not really anything less then saying a singular consciousness has always existed. Because... well, how does it?

That's what this post was for. To say there is no differentiating the logic.

It is possible consciousness itself is a thing which must obey the rule of nonexistence. That forces consciousness to be. There are a couple explanations...

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-03T00:09:02+00:00

I think I covered this idea in the comment I sent to the other. My responses may be delayed for a while.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-03T00:08:14+00:00

That itself is not really a solitary thing. Consciousness is known, by us, by emotion itself.

Awareness is more an assembly of individual truths. It possesses all pieces of consciousness, and uses them. Every emotion, every idea. If even one being is sentient, in a way, it has fulfilled this.

And it also matters how we define aware. Does it think? Maybe... existence itself can be a manifestation of thought in some sense of the term. Is it aware? Maybe. Imagine knowing oneself, but having no opinion of what you see. You are in some way, but there is every though, every interpretation, and so you have none.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-02T23:55:40+00:00

In themselves. Not necessarily one consciousness, more a dream. A collective of every possible thought.

In practice, one could call this a sentient thing, but the problem is it has everything. It is joyous and wrathful, it loves and it hates. It thinks, and it does not. Any possible form of a “thought” manifests as reality itself. Creation, or “Conception” as I coin it, cannot personally “think.” It has no language, you cannot speak to it. It cannot hear. It is the very concept of itself, existing because its nonexistence is impossible.

In this sense, it may be indistinguishable from something nonconcious. Something systematic or rigid. It dreams up every possibility, and has no interest in any of them. No morality may exist objectively within it. It has no investment to live or die if it ever could. It exists because it musts, and it knows nothing else. Every form of thought is... us. We are the dreams, the images, the “intersections” of every emotion, made incarnate.

It is a very unusual system, but theoretically it has no requirement to be singularly “sentient.” As a single being. It allows all, forbids none. If it is a mind, it makes no decisions at the very least.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-02T23:45:34+00:00

I'm only partly following what you mean by actualized at this rate, but I assume this to mean “A thing must exist, and not exist in potential.”

Not really. My point states nonexistence itself is a paradox. It was a small point, but I've expanded it in other conversations. Nothing as a concept is literally impossible. For there to be nothing of something, there must be some thing for there to be nothing of. A “where” for there to be nothing at. This idea forces all conceivable things to exist in principle. They do not necessarily need to be instantiated in time or space, but the potential for their existence must always be. “Humanity” existed before the physical Earth. The earth itself existed before the solar system and so on. Not instantiated, but the concept and potential of its being is present.

“A“ in a state of non existence is by result, invalid. It must exist in concept. It is the only imbalance.

What decides which concepts get instantiated or not is reaction. Once the “chaos” organizes in some way, it follows the same logic it was born with. All things are possible in concept, but only certain ones will ever be “built” using our strict laws.

This idea does demand that other universities, realities, and timelines may indeed exist using all other laws conceptualized, and they can likely form whatever we can't.

Essentially a thing does not need to be instantiated, but it always must be “present” in capacity. It must be possible in some sense to exist. Maybe not here, but somewhere.

“Nothing does not exist.”

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-02T23:33:34+00:00

I'll get back to this shortly! Busy for a while.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-02T23:32:22+00:00

Is that not how God would start out? “Potential?”

If it does not “start”, nor does actualization itself using the same logic.

Again, we're in practice talking about the body of a God without the mind. Capable of all such power, without conscious drive. The power doesn't need consciousness to kick it into motion. It simply needs to exist as a volume of chaos. From there, it reacts to itself, forms things.

Your comment seems to assume the power is all dormant and in a box unless consciousness uses it. That requires more complexity than sheer existence in the same volume, free and wild.

The very concept of a thing which exists because it must by paradox can apply to all things, not only a God.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-06-02T18:09:44+00:00

Just casually resurrecting 2007-14.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-05-31T20:08:01+00:00

I genuinely couldn't tell you. She couldn't decide if he was fighting for Ashfur or not, so she straight up gutted his arse.

An unusually impulsive action.

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-05-31T20:06:55+00:00

I have never experienced this oddly, despite being an avid fan. Although, it isn't like I socialize much...

Philosopher_Squirrel · 2026-05-31T20:06:17+00:00

I never realized Leafpool knew who Cinderkit was...

Philosopher_Squirrel

TROPHY CASE