Knightlight

From the notes of First Agent Christopher Griffin:
Critical Thinking – Logic exposes philosophical contradictions.
Contradictions can exist in the mind as a concept, but never in reality. Paradoxes exist, but contradictions do not. I will demonstrate a contradiction as it applies to this poser: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound.” Most mistake this for a “phenomenological puzzle,” of physics and causality. However, this is an existential question and a contradiction. It seems a shrewd enigma, but it is just more anthropic, post-modernist, inconsistent nonsense.
The group offering this conundrum believe themselves to be thinkers of great depth, while the other group believes that the answer can be derived by physics, acoustics, with a “yes or no” answer, and a detailed explanation. Neither seems to comprehend the incongruity. The postulation first assumes that there could in fact be, no observer where “man” or at least some natural “being” is the implied observer, and by allusion, that there is no Ultimate Observer who may completely supersede the very possibility of “non-observation.” It ascribes the existence of sound only if observed, and there is a Truth in that, but it is not what they think it is. (I’ll explain below.)
To see the contradiction, it must be understood that the challenge is not questioning that a sound can be “heard,” but if the sound actually “exists.” You must also understand that, at the same time, it already ascribes existence to a familiar universe which at least includes a tree, a forest, perhaps ground, an audio-conducting atmosphere, light (assumed) that makes all potentially visible, gravity, and all the attributes of physics, without requiring an observer for those. Its premise is that without the observer giving reality to the sound, that the sound may not exist. But it contradicts itself because if mere observation by a natural being were required for sound’s existence, (and there is no observer,) you would also have to rule out the existence of the tree, and the forest, and gravity, and the existence of physics, and the existence of the question itself, not just the sound. The postulation employs faulty logic, and is self-contradictory.
But what of the observer? I suggest that the question ascribes a limited form of “god-hood” to the unnamed observer, since without an observer – nothing exists, and I agree. But now I will explain as I said I would: Nature, the totality of this universe does not exist just because the natural beings within observe it, nor did it come into being to be observed by natural beings within, as some foolish persons propose. It only exists because the Creator/Observer magnificently made it, and observes it within and from without, moment-to-moment, microsecond-to-microsecond.
Nothing exists, if the Creator/Observer is not the immediate witness to it eternally, because He has the power for what is observable to “be” in the first place. He thinks, therefore we are… If man were self-existent, Rene’ Descartes could have been correct, but reality is not based upon man’s philosophical views or his perception. That gives me great confidence and joy, because I know that I exist because the Lord God Almighty is thinking of me and is with me, moment-to-moment, microsecond-to-microsecond. I know that He exists because there “is” something to observe. Conclusion: You must always analyze the wisdom of this world to expose it for the foolishness that it is.