The First Action, What Did It?

[Luminous]

I believe that...


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.

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.

First, if you are suggesting that God caused it's own self-awareness then that means it was unconscious at first. [edit -back, now i'll finish ]

second, If God had no first action then what is the point of the "ultimate cause" argument. If it's God all the way down, then It is God all the way up. But I'm guessing what you are saying is that God created causal relationships at a certain point, That seems strange and odd since "certain point" would have to exist outside time...yet certain point is strictly defined within time...but im guessing you think God is cabable of such a paradox. In which case your argument remains a paradox, and all you are doing is confusing yourself into anti-agnostic lies. It seems, however, that you now think that God caused no first action, since there have been actions all the way down, namely: the existance and awareness of God. So then the title of the thread becomes irrelavant, and nothing caused the first action, actions have always been there. Now, assuming that the existance and awareness of God were not "caused or created" yet something after that WAS then there arises a mystery. If it's the existance and awareness of God all the way down, then it should be the existance and awareness of God all the way up. the mystery being in what way does God's existance and awareness "cause or create"? IF God decided somewhere along the line of pre-time "Aha, I shall cause or create!" how did his existance OR awareness cause such a decision? IT seems completely illogical and paradoxical, which makes it rash to argue about.

third, "proving that being a beginner of action is impossible" is not necessarily what I was going for. anything can begin something esle, and that seems to be the case in our physical universe, what i meant to put forward was that "ultimate cause" is an oxymoron. If one says "God can't be infinite, something infinite is not an ultimate cause!" then their statement is legitimate. If they put forth that God's infinateness is ultimately caused by reality, than reality caused God and reality is the true ultimate cause. But I somehow doubt that we have arrived anywhere near reality with our sciences, and have actually departed from reality with our religions. We would likely need to be all-knowing to arrive at reality. O.k. now you try to water down the paradox by saying that God's decision to create was always there, then why didn't it? If it's God all the way down before the first "natural" thing, then why God didn't Go forward on its decision for some pre-time?(can we even talk coherently at "pre-time"?), which is a new paradox, since it existed with its decision made yet didn't make it until it made it...(did "until" even exist before God?) A paradox remains if we try to water this new paradox down by saying that God's eternal existance, awareness, and decision all happened instantly: because "eternal instant" is an oxymoron. Now you are also saying that "eternity is an absolute truth, because nothing can't do anything"...but as I explained before "Nothing" is ALL-POWERFUL. Now assuming "nothing" is powerless, since it is, after-all, nothing (might be as legitimate as saying that nothing is all-powerful); that assumption about nothing (please don't think im playing the fool) does not lead us to "aha! ergo eternity is an absolute truth!" since there appear to be some things which are not eternal. As I explained before, I don't think the eternal can legitimately cause the finite. Also, simply because yours' and other theistic arguments are mostly paradoxical does not mean you can use the fact that I point it out to you as an excuse to name call me, though I am much more Glad that you called by an atheist rather than a theist or other blasphemer. If God existed, an atheist commits only one lie...while theists and Deists grusomely and grotesquely craft and shape their image of God (idol) into what ever shape they see fit for their illigitimate desires. As to whether I am rejecting God...only YOU would know that wouldn't you? (sarcasm). though you might not notice, the truth is you are agnostic. On your explination of why you would call me such a name (though i am glad you didn't call me a theist), You are wrong, clearly showing that you have not given this theistic idea of yours' much thought: For one thing: God could exist even if it it didn't and doesn't cause anything. Even if one choice is removed, there are is an uncountable number of choices left. Wait, let me get you straight: I should be careful in confesing my agnosticism because using the word "paradox" makes me an atheist? Oh never mind, i get what you mean, paradoxs are possible, but i've never been directly aqueinted with one. however, if we go around assuming paradoxs are not not only possibly but most definately true, we would get nowhere fast. I try not to depend on paradoxes for physical and philosophical explinations...though i could be wrong, would you mind showing me why truth should rely on paradox?

Oh, don't worry about it, your mistake shouldn't be taken too hard. I make the same mistake sometimes. Spanish is similar to Arabic in making such a gramatical fault. I believe Spanish has only "that"(eso) "that he"(ese) "that she"(esa) "the he"(el) "the she"(la) and "he thing"(coso) "she thing"(cosa) but i believe there is no "it". "God"(genderless, or male in the English conotation) is refered to as Dios(genderless, or male), instead of Diosa (Godess) which would be a female God. English, however, is more useful for this sort of conversation when including the word "it" meaning solely genderless or gender insignificant, or unknown, or other. When I learned English from Spanish, "it" and gender neutral "the" were concepts that brightened up my day, and made language more elegant in my opinion. The word "it" was no modern conotation on whether something is conscious or not...perhaps it used to.

 

[PolyHedral]

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

It's because of something called the Uncertainty Principle, which tells us that there are pairs of quantities that cannot be both measured accurately simultaneously. (For instance, to measure the position of a small object, you must hit it with a high-energy photon. The photon will then transfer some energy to the object, which will change the object's velocity.)

Two of these quantities are the energy of the system, and the time it is measured in. These leads to a rather odd phenomenon when you measure the energy of the vacuum: if you measure it over a very long time, it's energy content is near-enough zero, since it's empty. However, if you measure it over very short amounts of time, the uncertainty in the energy rises very sharply. If you measured it very very fast indeed, your uncertainty in the energy might be as large as, say, the electron mass. (E=mc^2.) That means that, after you have made your measurement, you can't say whether there was an electron there or not.

But there might be other things in the area (such as photons) that would react differently depending on whether there was an electron there or not. Because you don't know, you don't know how those things react either. And there might be things that react to those, etc, etc.

But the phantom electron doesn't come from anywhere. It only appeared because of the mathematics of the uncertainty principle.

Presumably, God is capable of creating itself.

Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey.

 

[waitasec]

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.

all i know is i am alive as you are. no one is any righter/better than the next person...this god you believe in is absolutely subjected to a bronze age understanding that theists apply for todays world...call me an atheists..anti theist i don't care...does knowing why it happen really make a difference when we are surrounded by indifference?
all i know is i am responsible to my fellow human and we each need to treat each other with mutual respect. now how is it that i can say this as an atheist or an anti theist?

 

[Zhakir]

First, if you are suggesting that God caused it's own self awareness then that means it was unconscious at first. I will come back and finish later.

Can you quote where i claimed this, read my posts to see what i said about eternety, i never claimed God caused It's awareness. A thing that doesn't have a start, isn't caused.

 

[Luminous]

Can you quote where i claimed this, read my posts to see what i said about eternety, i never claimed God caused It's awareness. A thing that doesn't have a start, isn't caused.

It was an "IF" statement. I was unsure what you were trying to say with your first point. and i assumed you had read my arguments and had mostly agreed with God's awareness as an Act of God, so that if God is the ultimate cause then God caused it's own awareness at some point. sorry if i was mistaken, but I did take into account the possibility that you thought God and God's awareness always existed, though after that you seemed to add the premise that God's decision for creation always existed too. I finished up editing it btw. Also post #19 was when I began to engage your post yesterday.

 

[Zhakir]

Before replying to anything, I would like to remove this misunderstanding

As to whether I am rejecting God...only YOU would know that wouldn't you? (sarcasm). though you might not notice, the truth is you are agnostic. On your explination of why you would call me such a name (though i am glad you didn't call me a theist), You are wrong, clearly showing that you have not given this theistic idea of yours' much thought: For one thing: God could exist even if it it didn't and doesn't cause anything. Even if one choice is removed, there are is an uncountable number of choices left. Wait, let me get you straight: I should be careful in confesing my agnosticism because using the word "paradox" makes me an atheist? Oh never mind, i get what you mean, paradoxs are possible, but i've never been directly aqueinted with one. however, if we go around assuming paradoxs are not not only possibly but most definately true, we would get nowhere fast. I try not to depend on paradoxes for physical and philosophical explinations...though i could be wrong, would you mind showing me why truth should rely on paradox?

I never said paradox are possible,qoute me saying this. I said exactly the oppiste:For you to use the word paradox refering to the idea of the ultimate cause, God, means that you believe that God is impossible=atheist. On the other hand you are not claiming that God doesn't exist. This contradictions you make leads me to ask you to stop using the word "paradox" and replace it with "i don't know", instead of asking you to stop claiming to be an agnostic.In other words if you are an agnostic the truth is that you don't believe that the ultimate cause is a paradoxic concept.

As for me i repeat, I believe that the ultimate cause is an absolute truth, for I'm not an agnostic doubting the paradoxic statment:"Nothing" which isn't there might be able toact" I'm a theist and your claim that "i think Ultimate cause is absolutly true paradoxical concept" is wrong and has no basis in my posts, which only points that you don't believe it's paradoxical if you are agnostic.

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.

 

[Luminous]

Before replying to anything, I would like to remove this misunderstanding

I never said paradox are possible,qoute me saying this. I said exactly the oppiste:For you to use the word paradox refering to the idea of the ultimate cause, God, means that you believe that God is impossible=atheist. On the other hand you are not claiming that God doesn't exist. This contradictions you make leads me to ask you to stop using the word "paradox" and replace it with "i don't know", instead of asking you to stop claiming to be an agnostic.In other words if you are an agnostic the truth is that you don't believe that the ultimate cause is a paradoxic concept.

As for me i repeat, I believe that the ultimate cause is an absolute truth, for I'm not an agnostic doubting the paradoxic statment:"Nothing" which isn't there might be able toact" I'm a theist and your claim that "i think Ultimate cause is absolutly true paradoxical concept" is wrong and has no basis in my posts, which only points that you don't believe it's paradoxical if you are agnostic.

I am sorry if I misrepresent you. I remind everyone that I only represent myself and my thoughts on others. Moving on, you are right that I as an agnostic think paradoxes are possible(though opinions on paradoxes are not agnostic stances) because in my view of reality everything is probably possible. However, I thought you were trying to say that if one doesn't believe in paradoxes one is an atheist, and that since I was using the word paradox to bring forth illigitimacies in the Ultimate Cause Argument then I didn't believe in paradoxes and was a filthy atheist who should stop confessing agnosticism. Now, having thus re-itterated what you were trying to say, I must again point out that even though I lean to believe that "Ultimate Cause" is an oxymoron and therefore a paradox and thus God might not be the "ultimate cause" there are still two aspects given upon God by humans that I can say I might cling with theists on. Although God might not be a "ultimate creater," God could still be an "ultimate ruler" and/or "ultimate judge"...meaning that IT would have to exist. Although the "ultimate ruler" argument lends itself to backlash as well, and the "ultimate judge" argument is basically unengageable. I could replace the word "paradox" with "you do not know" since such an exchange would be equally coherent as the one to suggested and I have 100% faith and knowledge of Agnostic truth, as revealed by God upon my comming into function. It's not that "I don't know", its that "I'm sure you don't know either." Whether my personal opinion as Given by God is this or that, agnosticism has nothing to do with whether I agree with the ultimate cause believe or whether paradoxes are possible. Now, if you are going to remain on the believe that I am a demonically inspired atheist who pretents he is Agnostic in faith, by saying that I just disagreed with all three aspects given unto God by fallible humans, I must point out to you that disagreement does not equal knowledge...and thus I and you and they are still agnostic. If you are going to be stubborn and say that the "ultimate cause" is God and there is no other way God could exist except as a scape-goat for existance, then I would much rather support the phrase "ultimate existance" rather than "ultimate cause." Unless of course, as foolish atheists always point out, you define "existance" as solely within space-time and thus space-time is the ultimate existance, independent of whether there is a God or not reciding with it and everything without/ouside space-time doesn't exist(In that God doesn't exist by the Supernatural Problem, supernatural also being an oxymoron, semantically.)... to those atheists who would be foolheardy enough to stand against agnosticism and ultimate truth, I will again give grounds on semantics and support the phrase "ultimate reality" instead. Moving on, I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. I'll try to break your comment down as I see it:

1. you are a anti-agnostic theist who believes that the ultimate cause is an absolute truth.

my responce: though ultimate cause could be true, it is not an absolute truth since it could also be false. The Problem of Eternity, would stand against the idea of ultimate cause. Some would have that eternity cannot be an ultimate cause, since it is infinately regresional. I favor that view.

2. I am an agnostic who doubts the paradox: "nothing which is not there might be able to act"

my responce: Are you saying you do not doubt the statement? Anyway, I do doubt it. My lean on the Problem of Nothing is that that Nothing is all-capable, since nothing is there to stop it (no laws of physics, or any kind for that matter). Nothing which is not there, means Something which IS there. again that sentence is horribly worded and incomprehensible. If you are saying something is NOT there, then Nothing IS there. If you are saying Nothing Isn't there, then you are either saying that Nothing is there or that something is there. [edit - back] ...I personally think it's an either/or case: you can't have no nothing because then i can argue that i have no no nothing or no no no nothing. I think making it simple as either "nothing" or "something" is best, in dealing with the Problem of Nothing... yet here without the physical laws, nothing becomes all-powerful.

3. You do not claim that the "ultimate cause" is an absolutely true paradox

my responce: so what you are saying is that "ultimate cause" is true, but it is not a paradox; am i correct? I think it is not necessarily true and it is a paradox. it is not true because it could be false, and it is a paradox because the argument stems from "everything has a cause, except some things" which is contradictory sentence in my view. Although as you have pointed out, what your really want to argue is that "everything except God and God's actions has a cause"; such a premise is not logical, you are establishing as your premise that which you seak to prove.

4. I shouldn't believe "ultimate cause" is paradoxical if I am agnostic.

my responce: I don't agree. Theist who would so define agnostic to your own advantage, Would you let me have any opinions at all? I may know that I don't know, but I CAN think and imagine.
many agnostics hold that the "ultimate cause" idea is unsubstantiated and paradoxical, and many don't. So this vain attempt to silence agnostic truth fails. An agnostic can believe anything. there can even be muslim and christian and atheist people who confess their agnosticism, yet lean towards believing the ideas expoused by the humans that forgot their agnosticism: such as Mohammad, Jesus, and Gautama... or other religious leaders, such as your Imman, their Pastor, or their Guru/Master.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Zhakir... just for discussion's sake, let's consider another hypothetical explanation:

An uncaused gopher.

We know it's uncaused, because it's right there: an uncaused gopher doesn't need a cause; if it did, it wouldn't be an uncaused gopher.

Now... can you demonstrate that your "God" explanation is better than the "uncaused gopher" explanation?

IOW, can you show that your answer is better than one we know to be nonsense?

 

[TheGodHypothesis]

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.



[/quote]

This concept was proposed by Aquinas of course in his 5 "Proofs" (or was it 6?). It could have been 10, it's still as meaningless. The argument from infinite regression is an infantile word game purported to "prove" the existence of God. As if semantics could ever provide evidence for something so improbable as God. Everything that moves must have had a Prime Mover and that Mover we call God. Then if we continue with the regression you would ask, out of logical necessity, "What caused God"? The answer is another regression, a regression to which there is no end making the paradox meaningless. You, however, choose to ascribe to God the title of "The first Mover"? Why? If you're using logic then why do you arbitrarily stop the regression at God? You stop it because it's the conclusion, the emotional conclusion, that you want. It's as silly as the Achilles Paradox (google it if you haven't read it). Logically achilles will never catch the tortoise but practically OF COURSE he will. It shows that words games, while they may require some thought, never really prove anything. Show me your evidence. Or simply state, "I know He exists because I know he exists". If you try to use logic then complete your logical thoughts don't stick a being that you want to exist into the gap of knowledge that lies at the absolute beginning of the universe. Why not just stick a magical toaster as the Prime Mover?

 

[PolyHedral]

It might be helpful to consider two things that drop out of the mathematics:
1) There never was nothing.
2) An infinite chain of causes isn't necessarily wrong, merely counter-intuitive.

 

[Zhakir]

It's very clear now that those who reject the argument, count only on the same two things the argument makes impossible.
1. Some of you depend on the paradox "Nothing which isn't there, (is?) all-powerful and acted and created, some others reject this.
2.Those others depend on the other paradoxic concept "infinite chain of causes".

So by proving these claims wrong, God's existence is proved.

And 9-10ths penguin what i mean is that we make sure the ultimate cause is not caused because,not an appeal to ignorance but because we are sure that the contradicting idea "infinite chain" is impossible. (Principle of contradiction)

That's why my explanation is different from your hypothetical explanation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's very clear now that those who reject the argument, count only on the same two things the argument makes impossible.
1. Some of you depend on the paradox "Nothing which isn't there, (is?) all-powerful and acted and created, some others reject this.
2.Those others depend on the other paradoxic concept "infinite chain of causes".

So by proving these claims wrong, God's existence is proved.

Did you completely ignore this?

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.

 

[Erebus]

The First Action, What Did It?

Obviously it was MY God that did it

 

[Luminous]

O.k. My arguments and counterpoints were:
1. logic is useless in finding real truth
2. philosophy is useless before God.
3. I don't believe in an "ultimate cause"
4. I AM agnostic
5. you are agnostic
6. God could have created "gods"
7. paradoxes are possible but not reliable
8. The concept of "nothing" cannot include a believe in "no nothing"
9. without the laws, anything is possible.
10. etc.

1. Some of you depend on the paradox "Nothing which isn't there, (is?) all-powerful and acted and created, some others reject this.
2.Those others depend on the other paradoxic concept "infinite chain of causes".

1. most (including myself) were arguing that "nothing which isn't there" is not a logical statement. a true statement is either "nothing is there" or "something is there." if we were to allow something unfair like "nothing isn't there" then we would be confused to to where something is there or not, and should also remember that nothing isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't there. as well as all the other unfair statements that come out of a misconstrude interpretation of "nothing" as having the qualities of "something"
"nothing which isn't there" is not a paradox. it is just an unfair statement. "nothing which isn't there is" is just a balance responce to the statmente and just as unfair.
2. The God hypothesis also depends on an "infinite chain of causes" abbreviated as "God." infinate chain of causes is not a paradox. "infinate instant/cause" could be, and seams to be what you are in favor of.

 

[PolyHedral]

It's very clear now that those who reject the argument, count only on the same two things the argument makes impossible.
1. Some of you depend on the paradox "Nothing which isn't there, (is?) all-powerful and acted and created, some others reject this.
2.Those others depend on the other paradoxic concept "infinite chain of causes".

So by proving these claims wrong, God's existence is proved.

And 9-10ths penguin what i mean is that we make sure the ultimate cause is not caused because,not an appeal to ignorance but because we are sure that the contradicting idea "infinite chain" is impossible. (Principle of contradiction)

That's why my explanation is different from your hypothetical explanation.

There is nothign paradoxical about an infinite chain of causes. It is merely counter intuitive.

 

[Zhakir]

Did you completely ignore this?

Do you say that the creation of the matter,energy, space and time is not a caused thing? logically isn't caused means eternal or never created,No? What made the big bang happen? If you say nothing or "impossible for an effect to take place" you are then faced by too many contradictions, like "it's then never happened". How do you disprove this "creation is an effect and cause it took place before big bang"?

 

[Willamena]

"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.

Sounds about right. The world is here, now. The heavens (all things) and the earth (consciousness) split "asunder" give us an image of "God" that "lies ever beyond" our reach, the god of the agnostic-theist, the God of "before" --before everything. Before this moment in time. Such a God that would stand at the beginning of a certain point in time and 'push' is implausible. Every moment is a 'push', or none are.

The "first action" that I propose wasn't "made"; rather it is happening now, here, in synch with consciousness. We are aware of things starting and ending, so the start and the end of all things are part of the creation (the earth). We are aware of the proposed chain of starts and ends, stretching back into darkness --that, too, happens now. The induction of a "cause" to any perceived "effect" happens here, now. "Happening" is our awareness of things*.


(Literally: what goes on in 'the covering')

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you say that the creation of the matter,energy, space and time is not a caused thing? logically isn't caused means eternal or never created,No? What made the big bang happen? If you say nothing or "impossible for an effect to take place" you are then faced by too many contradictions, like "it's then never happened". How do you disprove this "creation is an effect and cause it took place before big bang"?

No, you are still stuck on the 'cause-effect' argument.

Eternal, nothing, matter, energy, space, time, etc... are meaningless concepts once you reach back far enough to the point where our physical laws do not apply.

 

[Zhakir]

No, you are still stuck on the 'cause-effect' argument.

Eternal, nothing, matter, energy, space, time, etc... are meaningless concepts once you reach back far enough to the point where our physical laws do not apply.

So then it becomes illegal to ask "under what law the universe was created?"

 

[tumbleweed41]

So then it becomes illegal to ask "under what law the universe was created?"

Ask away.
Without our Universes own physical laws, creation is not necessary.