The First Action, What Did It?

[Zhakir]

Hello ..You read this word, that means your brain did something right? So you used energy, how did your brain use energy? You ate meat -which you used as energy- hours ago , how did the animal got these energy? The Food chain leads to sun light, this light energy is released from sun matter nuclear fusion, the sun it self was made with something from nearby supernova.....................before there was a big bang.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran 21:30)"

Whatever scenario any human being has to propose -no matter where or when he\she lived? The question i want to ask to The Atheists and The Agnostic people is
What ever made the first action that you propose ?
of course you will attribute to something. Simple Logic says that human beings should unite on this answer: "The nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing". What is it that did the first action and what's its character? Let's use logic to know. An important one It's of course A conscious being , because unconscious automaticity or automatically working subject simply means a series of action that eventually end to a first action (believe me, just take any example of what you call automatic living , mechanic,electronic,natural, what so ever object, and the chain of action ends to a point), but now we are talking the first actor, which is impossible to be effected be something before to act any of his action. (you came first on the race? good but who came before you?) for such an illogical question the answer is nothing, it's impossible. No?

Every thing was firstly caused and started by God who has no start, but he himself didn't start acting at a time, and no such thing as the first thing God did, because there are always things before, as God always was there before.

 

[Luminous]

Philosophy is undone at God's command. Our persuits would be meaningless if God was defined. As a representative of myself as an Agnostic Person, my answer shall be sincerely given. As to the first and main question, I believe we can only arrive at theoretical and hypothetical answers, much useless in certainty. But perhaps such possibilities can be pondered thoroughly, in later times. Now, your main argument is formulated based on the first premise: "the nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing." This statment is easily challenged on grounds of Knowledge ~ how can you know that the nothing isn't there? such problems of the anti-agnostic arguments are studied by philosophy: namely termed the problem of emptiness, or the problem of nothing. In forcus, a statement "the nothing IS there, and so it can do anything" would easily hold as much ground as the original statement posed by anti-agnostics. In such way, I also believe you are confusing "Logic" with "Reason."
The other hurtle begins at your statement: "Let's use logic to know." It is baseless and rash. Logic is not a tool used to know, it is a process used to establish a connection between what is assumed and what should thus be assumed from that.
The next hurtle: the first action must be self-aware; however, when thinking smoothly it becomes clear that self-awareness is considered an action as well... how did this action come into play? The common concept of God would completely confuse the order of action. God would commonly be taken by the deniers of their agnosticism to be always self aware, and always existant. thus the first action was always happening and thus had no beginning and is thus not a "first" action at all. Being as the beginner of Action is a paradox...and it is common in logic to dismiss paradoxes.
Now I will and must point out to you that God is not assumed male; and I personally take it as a great Blasphemy and disrespect of honorable truth to call God a him or her. IT is more powerful than that.
Going back to the initial point, the concept of a "first actor" is paradoxical and perhaps oxymoronic. If God is eternal then there is nothing that was "first" and If God is "the cause" then there is nothing that is not God.
If you choose to answer my challenge by saying that you are merely speaking of the first action outside of the self-awereness of God...actually i don't see much of an "outside". But lets say that I grant your believe that there is something separate from its ultimate cause: in that there is God and God's self-awereness, and then there is the "first" and other actions outside of that. Im assuming your next point would be that because of this: irreducibly and irrefutable God would be the "first Actor". However, here is where some polytheistic religions aquire a unique base...In that God created other "gods" whom became the first actors. in this way, God is not the first actor, "gods" are. With these arguments you would have to redefine your definition yet again, in that there was God and God's awareness, and then there was the action of creating gods to create the first "natural" action. In this sense, you believe that your noble religion is "natural" and that God's universal laws are constant, but the universal laws could have been crafted by "gods" that were created by God, in much the same way that so called "angels" were created. In retrospect, the only difference would be a loosely defined one in which "gods" are immortal powerful creatures with free-will, while angels are immortal powerful slaves. I say loosely because the Problem of evil is again presented in that Lucifer should have thus been a slave and would never have sinned...not unless he was a "god."

Though I could not answer your question definatively, I hope that I have shown that the agnostic stance is the noblest and closest to TRUTH. The Theist stance is as baseless as the Atheist. The Ultimate cause is still unknown to us, and is perhaps unknowable.

 

[lunakilo]

Hello ..You read this word, that means your brain did something right? So you used energy, how did your brain use energy? You ate meat -which you used as energy- hours ago , how did the animal got these energy? The Food chain leads to sun light, this light energy is released from sun matter nuclear fusion, the sun it self was made with something from nearby supernova.....................before there was a big bang.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran 21:30)"

Whatever scenario any human being has to propose -no matter where or when he\she lived? The question i want to ask to The Atheists and The Agnostic people is
What ever made the first action that you propose ?
of course you will attribute to something. Simple Logic says that human beings should unite on this answer: "The nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing". What is it that did the first action and what's its character? Let's use logic to know. An important one It's of course A conscious being , because unconscious automaticity or automatically working subject simply means a series of action that eventually end to a first action (believe me, just take any example of what you call automatic living , mechanic,electronic,natural, what so ever object, and the chain of action ends to a point), but now we are talking the first actor, which is impossible to be effected be something before to act any of his action. (you came first on the race? good but who came before you?) for such an illogical question the answer is nothing, it's impossible. No?

How can you be sure there was a first action?
Maybe the universe has always existed and therefore no "first action" is needed.

Every thing was firstly caused and started by God who has no start, but he himself didn't start acting at a time, and no such thing as the first thing God did, because there are always things before, as God always was there before.

There is no logic in the argument:
a) Everything is caused by something
b) God is not caused by anything

 

[Breathe]

How do you know the universe's first cause didn't occur because of the reaction from a parent universe?

 

[Zhakir]

I'll reply to this first

How can you be sure there was a first action?
Maybe the universe has always existed and therefore no "first action" is needed.

I believe in creation but until now i didn't ask what made the universe come to existence, not yet, i asked about an action, What caused the big bang, or whatever scenario you propose as the beginning of events our universe has started to form our planet and ourselves. As long as you believe that every change or effect or action was made by something, and that infinite causal chains don't exist, then you will be sure there is a prime mover

There is no logic in the argument:
a) Everything is caused by something
b) God is not caused by anything

Yes there is no logic in this argument, I said: "Everything was firstly caused and started by God who has no start". "Has no start" means that God wasn't caused by anything,so "Everything" here doesn't include God of course you know i didn't mean that God was caused by himself. to make it more clear i should have said that Every created thing is caused By God, and God,the uncreated, was not caused by any thing.
I didn't mean "Everything is caused by something and God is not caused by anything."
Thank you for your note, now what will be your response about the Uncaused, first cause? remember Effect, action or change, not creation yet i'm asking.

 

[lunakilo]

I'll reply to this first
I believe in creation but until now i didn't ask what made the universe come to existence, not yet, i asked about an action, What caused the big bang, or whatever scenario you propose as the beginning of events our universe has started to form our planet and ourselves.

A first action implies a creation.
My point is simply, maybe there was no creation, and thus no first action.

As long as you believe that every change or effect or action was made by something, and that infinite causal chains don't exist, then you will be sure there is a prime mover

If you believe that then, yes, you need a prime mover.

Yes there is no logic in this argument, I said: "Everything was firstly caused and started by God who has no start". "Has no start" means that God wasn't caused by anything,so "Everything" here doesn't include God of course you know i didn't mean that God was caused by himself. to make it more clear i should have said that Every created thing is caused By God, and God,the uncreated, was caused by any thing.
I didn't mean "Everything is caused by something and God is not caused by anything."

I have problem with your claim that 'infinite causal chains don't exist' but a being which has always existed and can create something from nothing does.

Why is the second more likely/logical than the first?

 

[lunakilo]

... i asked about an action, What caused the big bang, or whatever scenario you propose as the beginning of events our universe has started to form our planet and ourselves.

Thank you for your note, now what will be your response about the Uncaused, first cause? remember Effect, action or change, not creation yet i'm asking.

Assuming that there was a first action...

I don't know what could have caused the universe to be created.
There are many people smarter than me who try to figure that out. My guess would be some sort of quantum physical phenomenon, but I am not enough of an expert in that area to say that it is so.

But just because I don't know how it happened doesn't necessarily mean that God did it.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Tao. The first state was imbalance, the first resultant, cascade. Ya know, if-then loops loops lead to the halting state.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It cannot be shown that a cause is even necessary for the Singularity, much less the Big Bang.

Cause and Effect have only been shown to be relevant when matter/energy interacts with space/time. None of which existed until after the Big Bang.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello ..You read this word, that means your brain did something right? So you used energy, how did your brain use energy? You ate meat -which you used as energy- hours ago , how did the animal got these energy? The Food chain leads to sun light, this light energy is released from sun matter nuclear fusion, the sun it self was made with something from nearby supernova.....................before there was a big bang.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran 21:30)"

Whatever scenario any human being has to propose -no matter where or when he\she lived? The question i want to ask to The Atheists and The Agnostic people is
What ever made the first action that you propose ?

Quantum fluctuation seems to be pointing toward the possibility that not all effects need ultimate causes, but regardless, what's wrong with "I don't know" if we truly don't know?

To argue that we must accept your unsupported answer as true simply because we haven't found another one is an appeal to ignorance.

of course you will attribute to something. Simple Logic says that human beings should unite on this answer: "The nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing". What is it that did the first action and what's its character? Let's use logic to know. An important one It's of course A conscious being , because unconscious automaticity or automatically working subject simply means a series of action that eventually end to a first action (believe me, just take any example of what you call automatic living , mechanic,electronic,natural, what so ever object, and the chain of action ends to a point),

That makes no sense. Every conscious being we know of was just as dependent on prior causes as every unconscious effect we know. Your inference is invalid.

but now we are talking the first actor, which is impossible to be effected be something before to act any of his action. (you came first on the race? good but who came before you?) for such an illogical question the answer is nothing, it's impossible. No?

It's an illogical question, but your argument demands it, since you're effectively arguing that it's impossible for any of the runners to have crossed the line first.

Every thing was firstly caused and started by God who has no start, but he himself didn't start acting at a time, and no such thing as the first thing God did, because there are always things before, as God always was there before.

Special pleading.

If God doesn't need a cause, then your initial premise that everything needs a cause is false. If God does need a cause, then he's just another link in the chain and doesn't actually provide the answer you say he does.

 

[PolyHedral]

The laws of physics are the root cause of all actions, for those ones that need causes. (The laws of physics also dictate that some very small actions have no cause whatsoever.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not interested in making up answers to unanswerable, and possibly meaningless, questions. I suppose if I were, then I would probably be religious.

 

[Breathe]

(The laws of physics also dictate that some very small actions have no cause whatsoever.)

Oooh. Do tell, do tell!
It will probably go over my head, but I'd still like to know.

 

[no-body]

I will never understand why people string together a bunch of meaningless words when they are just saying "blind faith"

That's it, that's what you're saying. Any attempt to use reason or science on this is dishonest and probably a plea to proselytize or convince themselves.

 

[Zhakir]

Philosophy is undone at God's command. Our persuits would be meaningless if God was defined. As a representative of myself as an Agnostic Person, my answer shall be sincerely given. As to the first and main question, I believe we can only arrive at theoretical and hypothetical answers, much useless in certainty. But perhaps such possibilities can be pondered thoroughly, in later times. Now, your main argument is formulated based on the first premise: "the nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing." This statment is easily challenged on grounds of Knowledge ~ how can you know that the nothing isn't there? such problems of the anti-agnostic arguments are studied by philosophy: namely termed the problem of emptiness, or the problem of nothing. In forcus, a statement "the nothing IS there, and so it can do anything" would easily hold as much ground as the original statement posed by anti-agnostics. In such way, I also believe you are confusing "Logic" with "Reason." .

I believe that certainly we can prove that "Nothing" can not do a thing. How to know that nothing isn't there you ask me? We should first of all at least agree on theses important definitions, "nothing" by definition is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing. nothing isn't there by definition, the other view is Paradoxical, other wise your aren't really talking about nothing, but another "terminological nothing" which is there! Not only there but acts, effects and changes, if it can effect my eye i will see it, if it can effect my ear i will hear it, if it can effect my touch and pressure receptors i can feel it, as long as you confess that your "terminological nothing" is there and can effect then we both agree on the meaning "A thing caused us"and words don't matter, you're not sure of many things, but i don't understand why claiming that theists are agnostic, counting on challenging with the paradoxical question
"how can you know that the nothing isn't there?"

The other hurtle begins at your statement: "Let's use logic to know." It is baseless and rash. Logic is not a tool used to know, it is a process used to establish a connection between what is assumed and what should thus be assumed from that.

Many people with many different definitions, on what bases is this a hurtle?

The next hurtle: the first action must be self-aware; however, when thinking smoothly it becomes clear that self-awareness is considered an action as well... how did this action come into play? The common concept of God would completely confuse the order of action. God would commonly be taken by the deniers of their agnosticism to be always self aware, and always existant. thus the first action was always happening and thus had no beginning and is thus not a "first" action at all. Being as the beginner of Action is a paradox...and it is common in logic to dismiss paradoxes.

Going back to the initial point, the concept of a "first actor" is paradoxical and perhaps oxymoronic. If God is eternal then there is nothing that was "first" and If God is "the cause" then there is nothing that is not God.
If you choose to answer my challenge by saying that you are merely speaking of the first action outside of the self-awereness of God...actually i don't see much of an "outside". But lets say that I grant your believe that there is something separate from its ultimate cause: in that there is God and God's self-awereness, and then there is the "first" and other actions outside of that. Im assuming your next point would be that because of this: irreducibly and irrefutable God would be the "first Actor". However, here is where some polytheistic religions aquire a unique base...In that God created other "gods" whom became the first actors. in this way, God is not the first actor, "gods" are. With these arguments you would have to redefine your definition yet again, in that there was God and God's awareness, and then there was the action of creating gods to create the first "natural" action. In this sense, you believe that your noble religion is "natural" and that God's universal laws are constant, but the universal laws could have been crafted by "gods" that were created by God, in much the same way that so called "angels" were created. In retrospect, the only difference would be a loosely defined one in which "gods" are immortal powerful creatures with free-will, while angels are immortal powerful slaves. I say loosely because the Problem of evil is again presented in that Lucifer should have thus been a slave and would never have sinned...not unless he was a "god."

Though I could not answer your question definatively, I hope that I have shown that the agnostic stance is the noblest and closest to TRUTH. The Theist stance is as baseless as the Atheist. The Ultimate cause is still unknown to us, and is perhaps unknowable

First If self-awareness is a change in God,action, or effect, then what caused it, and here goes an infinity loop, but i never claimed this.
Second i never claimed that there is a "first action of God", but there is a first action to effect us, i said
"Everything ( meaning caused or created) was firstly caused and started by God who has no start, but he himself didn't start acting at a time, and no such thing as the first thing God did, because there are always things before, as God always was there before."
Third, How do you prove that being a beginner of action is impossible? No paradox if that being's self-awareness and ablility to create isn't a change in him but as eterenal, eternity is not only possible but it is an absolute truth, becauses nothing can't do a thing. Moreover calling this idea a paradox simply means that you are saying that your atheist or rejecting God, though you might not notice, because logiclly by claiming that concept of the beginner of action is impossible, the only choic left is to claim that infinity loop not only exists but surly exists,or the surely"nothing acts". but you are an agnostic and also don't claim that. So be careful that calling your self an agnostic and using the word paradox,impossible at the same time is the real paradox.

Now I will and must point out to you that God is not assumed male; and I personally take it as a great Blasphemy and disrespect of honorable truth to call God a him or her. IT is more powerful than that..

I'm totally with you, God is genderless, but Language diffrence makes this misconceptions. There is no "It" in Arabic language only "Huwa which can either be translated as "He" or "It" and Hia which can either be translated to "She" or "It".
Huwa is defaulte, anything should be refered to by Huwa
Unless is Female, or ends in "At", and some other rules where "Hia" is used. For example we refer to "shajarat" meaning "tree" uisng Hia, but never translated it as She. beginner English language students may wrongly refeer to to trees by "She".
Many language are like Arabic and many like English and some maybe diffrent
Probably i as Quranic Muslim should use IT to avoid misconception, if it doesn't imply that God is uncounscious etc.

 

[Luminous]

I'll reply to this first


I believe in creation but until now i didn't ask what made the universe come to existence, not yet, i asked about an action, What caused the big bang, or whatever scenario you propose as the beginning of events our universe has started to form our planet and ourselves. As long as you believe that every change or effect or action was made by something, and that infinite causal chains don't exist, then you will be sure there is a prime mover

1. yet that "prime mover" shouldn't be an infinite causal chain in it of itself, otherwise, you are a hypocrite in a way. Now, assuming that Occamz's razor is sound, adding God as the infinite causal chain is an extra assumption that complicates the idea that the universe(existance) is an infinite causal chain in it of itself.

Yes there is no logic in this argument, I said: "Everything was firstly caused and started by God who has no start". "Has no start" means that God wasn't caused by anything,so "Everything" here doesn't include God of course you know i didn't mean that God was caused by himself. to make it more clear i should have said that Every created thing is caused By God, and God,the uncreated, was caused by any thing.
I didn't mean "Everything is caused by something and God is not caused by anything."
Thank you for your note, now what will be your response about the Uncaused, first cause? remember Effect, action or change, not creation yet i'm asking.

2. Samantics is a horrible way to win an argument. these aren't "created" things as your unfair and circular argument suggests...these are more of "existing" things. also Presumably, God is capable of creating itself.

 

[McBell]

Yes there is no logic in this argument, I said: "Everything was firstly caused and started by God who has no start". "Has no start" means that God wasn't caused by anything,so "Everything" here doesn't include God of course you know i didn't mean that God was caused by himself. to make it more clear i should have said that Every created thing is caused By God, and God,the uncreated, was caused by any thing.
I didn't mean "Everything is caused by something and God is not caused by anything."
Thank you for your note, now what will be your response about the Uncaused, first cause? remember Effect, action or change, not creation yet i'm asking.

So we are right back to square one with nothing to show for it other than your demonstrating your ability to talk your self in big circles.

 

[Manahel.Fatima]

Yes i believe too that every matter need first action. when ever we are boost to do some thing that is result of some sort of our mothers encouragement, discouragement or any quarrel with any one. Relate this with the whole universe and GOD too.

 

[Luminous]

I believe that certainly we can prove that "Nothing" can not do a thing. How to know that nothing isn't there you ask me? We should first of all at least agree on theses important definitions, "nothing" by definition is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing. nothing isn't there by definition, the other view is Paradoxical, other wise your aren't really talking about nothing, but another "terminological nothing" which is there! Not only there but acts, effects and changes, if it can effect my eye i will see it, if it can effect my ear i will hear it, if it can effect my touch and pressure receptors i can feel it, as long as you confess that your "terminological nothing" is there and can effect then we both agree on the meaning "A thing caused us"and words don't matter, you're not sure of many things, but i don't understand why claiming that theists are agnostic, counting on challenging with the paradoxical question
"how can you know that the nothing isn't there?" .


Many people with many different definitions, on what bases is this a hurtle?





First If self-awareness...

The paradox lies within the definition of "nothing" itself. If nothing isn't there, then it IS...because that is the definition of nothingness. there is no way to remove nothing without adding nothing. "Nothing isn't there" becomes a trivial lie such as the statement "this sentence is a lie." The problem of nothing still exists. going back to your first sentence, Nothing can DO EVERYTHING! because the laws of physics aren't there to stop it from doing things. your next argument as to the "termoninological nothingness" simply shows that nothing CAN be something(If the only definition of something is to have effect). and this is the problem of nothing. Nothing is ALL-POWERFUL.

Logic is a hurtle to the anti-agnostics becuase It is MOST CERTAINLY a useless tool when it comes to deforming our nature into non-agnostic beings. The Definition of Logic doens't matter, because the truth remains that to know something truely, you must know everything certainly.

....I am so sleepy, I will come back to this later if I remember.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Hello ..You read this word, that means your brain did something right? So you used energy, how did your brain use energy? You ate meat -which you used as energy- hours ago , how did the animal got these energy? The Food chain leads to sun light, this light energy is released from sun matter nuclear fusion, the sun it self was made with something from nearby supernova.....................before there was a big bang.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran 21:30)"

Whatever scenario any human being has to propose -no matter where or when he\she lived? The question i want to ask to The Atheists and The Agnostic people is
What ever made the first action that you propose ?

I don't recall proposing or even concluding on a "first action".

of course you will attribute to something.

False.

Simple Logic says that human beings should unite on this answer: "The nothing isn't there, so it can't do a thing".

If nothing is not somewhere then doesn't that mean there is something? I was under the impression that things can do things.

What is it that did the first action and what's its character?

I have no idea. Why propose a character?

Let's use logic to know. An important one It's of course A conscious being , because unconscious automaticity or automatically working subject simply means a series of action that eventually end to a first action (believe me, just take any example of what you call automatic living , mechanic,electronic,natural, what so ever object, and the chain of action ends to a point), but now we are talking the first actor, which is impossible to be effected be something before to act any of his action. (you came first on the race? good but who came before you?) for such an illogical question the answer is nothing, it's impossible. No?

Wait, so inanimate objects are required to have a first cause but conscious beings are not? What? Suggesting that everything needs a cause does not allow any speculation as to what that first cause is. You have assumed consciousness and then suggested that it can't be otherwise because we get to the problem of "the first actor" again.

Every thing was firstly caused and started by God who has no start, but he himself didn't start acting at a time, and no such thing as the first thing God did, because there are always things before, as God always was there before.

I don't know what led you to conclude this, as far as I'm aware we don't know enough about the origin of the universe to provide an answer to questions along this theme.