Why is it that absolutes must be the product of a sentient mind? A good question. In order to find out, let's consider some other viewpoints beside our own for their origin. You might argue that absolutes are merely an inherent part of our universe or of our existence. Any mind that has risen to the point of sentience thus is able to be aware of them. Just as any being that has risen to the point of being able to detect the scent of a rose would then be aware of the scent of the rose. In other words, it's 'built in'. This might be true, but it still does not deal with the origin of these inherent qualities. If these qualities can only be understood by the mind, then they must have been created by a mind. Just as physical processes must come from other physical processes (though we also must deal with the first physical process in that case).

We might also argue that these qualities are merely an illusion created by any sentient mind. Any being who has risen to the point of sentience is tricked into deducing that these qualities exist though they really do not. The downfall of this argument is that we have already determined beforehand that these qualities - these absolutes - are by definition objective. Meaning that they exist outside of the human, and sentient, mind. Despite what any sentient mind (not counting the original sentient mind) may think or believe, it would not impact the existence of absolutes.

We are still left with the problem of the origin of absolutes. As stated before, if they can only be understood by a sentient mind, then they must be the product of a sentient mind – like kind produces after like kind. We have not answered one question though: why must this be? Is this a necessary quality? It is, but first we must clarify our statement. A more accurate version would be this - if something (say a sentient mind) can only be aware of another thing, then that thing must be a product something equal to the original thing or something higher. What does that mean in general terms? We see the answer in the analogy of the rose. A being risen to the point of being able to detect the scent of a rose would then become aware of the scent of a rose. However, for the scent of a rose to exist there must first be such things as scents, and a rose that produces scents. It follows that if sentient minds had risen to the point of being able to comprehend absolutes, then absolutes must first exist, and there must be sentient mind that produces these absolutes. In other words, in order for the attributes of an object to exist, the object itself must exist.

But there is an immediate objection to this statement. What if you made up an attribute and assigned it to any particular object. In that case, merely having the attributes of the object would not preclude the existence of the object, right? Upon further inspection however, we see an error in our logic. We cannot merely ‘assign’ the attributes of a particular object to another object. We are just creating false associations in our minds – it does nothing to change the actual association for between the attribute and its object. For example, suppose someone had a machine that could create certain sounds that did not exist naturally in nature (like a synthesizer). If that person made up a sound and said that it was an attribute of nature and told us that, we would conclude naturally that there must then be such a thing as nature. That person would then laugh at us and tell us that our logic is flawed. However, we immediately see that it is not our logic that is flawed, it is the premises that we were given. We cannot conclude anything correctly without given correct premises on which to stand on. Mathematicians know this well – that is why they have such things as axioms. Given the correct information – that the sound produced could not be produced by nature and was produced by some sort of machine that could synthesize sound – we would naturally and simply conclude that there was such a thing as sound, and that some machine existed that could produce sounds not made by nature. It is merely common sense.

Yet, in our reasoning, how do we know that we are not in fact being tricked? That our premises are indeed correct? That absolutes exist and that they can only be understood by the human mind? We say, as previously mentioned, that absolutes exist because they are absolute and objective. If something is not absolutely true, it does not seem correct that one could logically conclude that it was. However, if one was somehow able to do so, the argument is not relevant to our conversation. If we are able to doubt everything – including absolutes – then we have absolutely nothing to debate. There can be no truth in such a case and all things are subjective. If you believe that is the case, then there need not ever be any arguments for truth over anything. What about the other premise, that sentient minds can only comprehend absolutes? How can we be sure of that? I concede that we cannot be absolutely sure. I think we can be logically confident in assuming that however. Being able to understand absolutes seems to be an attribute of a sentient mind. How can we be sure that outside our universe, outside all of space, that there is in fact nothing? We cannot be absolutely sure, but it seems more than reasonable to conclude that outside of space (space being the very last foundation of physical reality) there is nothing. Because if everything is inside of space, then outside of space there must be nothing, by definition. It is hard to imagine something existing in nothing that is not something (something being part of all things that exist in space). It is the same way it seems with the sentient minds. Though we cannot be absolutely sure out premise is true, it is more than reasonable to assume such a thing. It seems hard to conceptualize something that is not sentient that would be able to comprehend absolutes.

Now, having established that our premises are true (or at least, most likely true), it logically follows that if absolutes are only capable of being understood by sentient minds (that they are attributes solely of sentience) then a sentient mind must have produced them. We have gotten this far, so why not go farther? Let us take the next step. If this is so, what are the logical properties of this sentient mind?

Any such mind must be eternal - meaning that it has no beginning and it has no end. But why would we conclude this? Let us think of this logically. If this sentient mind must exist, then it must be the original sentient mind. Meaning that this sentient mind could not have been created or preceded by another mind, otherwise we are left with the contradiction of infinite minds. Why would the existence of infinite minds be contradictory?

This original sentience must never have been created and or preceded by another mind. It would have been in existence from past infinity to present time. And it must exist from now until infinity future. How can one destroy something that has not been created?

We would also deduce that this mind be omnipresent. Meaning it exists in all places at all times. To explain, let us look back at absolutes. We see that absolutes, being absolute and objective, would thus be true at all times, everywhere. If it was not, then they would not be absolute. If we placed you anywhere and any time and we placed the restriction that at that particular moment you were alive (just for that particular moment), then we could conclude that you exist (though the argument is somewhat circular, I can think of no way around it). As a more abstract argument, despite what place or time A is in, it cannot be both A not A at the same time. Something that could create a quality that is true for any place or any time, would itself have to have exist at any place and any time.

 This is a truism that must be present in the act of creation. I would define creation as a creator producing a thing from itself that is not dependant on any thing that is already existence besides itself. We see few examples in nature because things in nature are not created - they are merely already existing items being manipulated. I can build a strong, sturdy bridge and not have to be strong and sturdy myself. What is an example of creation that we can make an analogy to? (We must realize however that our analogy will not be a perfect one unless we are dealing with things that are absolute). I would put forth that the act of thought can be a creation. If I am born, but am devoid of all sensation at all - I am cut off completely, in essence, only my mind exists - I will still produce thought. If I produce a logical thought - I must myself be logical, or have thought logically. Again, this analogy may not perfect because logic may be a thing that is subjective instead of objective. I leave that to other minds to consider.

We deduced so far that this sentient mind then must be both eternal and omnipresent. In addition to these I would put forth yet another quality: omnipotence. Again we must draw on logical conclusions from absolutes. I would start with the question, what determines reality? How do we define reality? I would define reality as the true world that we live in - the environment around us that is truly real and objective. In determing what is real, what is objective, we would need a reference point. Something to compare it to. What do I mean by real? When I say 'real' I mean objective - what is 'really' there outside of our own minds. And of course, determining objective things would require something objective to compare it to - and that depends on absolutes. You can't determine if a color you are looking at is blue if the only color you have ever seen is blue. I wouldn't be able to determine if others exist if I didn't exist. I wouldn't be able to derive absolutes if there were not any prexisting absolutes. In other words, you have to have an absolute to define absolutes. A simple yet meaningful statement (it is almost a small proof for absolutes).

Thus, if reality depends on absolutes, whatever determines absolutes also determines reality. And reality encompasses everything. Reality includes absolutes also, but absolutes are not dependant on reality; it is reality that is dependant on absolutes. It is somewhat like the definition of water - water is made up of a bunch of molecules (two atoms hydrogen and one atom of oxygen) that exists in a certain state (liquid, and maintaining that state depends on temperature). Thus the definition of water includes temperature, but temperature is not dependant on the water, it is the water that is dependant on the temperature. At a different temperature the water is no longer water - it is ice or steam. However, the water cannot change its state by itself because it is dependant on the temperature - and not the other way around. So by definition, if this sentient mind we have talked about has the power of creating absolutes, it also has the power over reality. And since reality is 'everything', that sentience would have power over 'everything'. Or in other words, omnipotence.

It follows as a logical extension of the following argument, that since absolutes determine reality, and knowledge is a subset of reality or 'everything', this sentience would have to 'know all'. In other words, omniscience.

(Note: since all of the universe, matter and energy are a subset of everything, they would have been created by this sentience also. This would neatly explain the origin of all original matter in the universe - since we know it had a beginning.)