Lights. Camera. Action.

Part 1:

Can an action be without a beginning/start?

If you say yes, then name an action that just is (or: was) without ever having to begin/start.

If you say no, then that is as good as saying existence must have popped into existence, correct?

They say actions speak louder than words. I personally think action is the obviously brightest answer to our once commonly held mystery about existence itself.

Part 2:

Are things matter (iron, etc) and non-matter (gravity, awareness/consciousness/person, etc) an action?

Certain might realize that matter and non-matter started. If that is correct, then we can define them as an action, correct? All action requires is a beginning/start or end/stop. Matter and non-matter in the now are a continuing action inorder to now remain still. In other words, matter's existence involves actual stablization which makes them a factual action. Remaining is an action, is it not?

So because of action there is no "am" or "be" of any person or thing. Consider them murdered from your realizations of actualities. Only a place "be". We are just an action occupying the place that "be".

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Mabus]

Both the religion followers and atheists wouldnt want to answer this thread.

Yeah, if you believe in God in how a religion sways you to, then you prolly wouldnt want to admit to even having a realization that God is not eternal.

Yeah, if you are an atheist, then you prolly wouldnt want to admit existence popped into existing under any circumstances even if it moved you within honestly.

Haha, I got both sides I stay off acting as whipped on this one!

Lack a tude and give me my star props if I basically summed you up.

The truth is no respecter to those who label themselves to keep to rules. Keeping to rules of a label means you only are limiting yourself.

You know a word missing from dictionary is "actcome". "become" is in error because you cannot "be" ever if you weren't always a person that "be". So come be or be come (become) is in error. Place be, place didnt become. Hell, place lacks a will so it didnt even become us, even though we popped into it. We occupy a place, but we lack become it.

What do you want to become when you grow up? (Wrong!) It's: What do you want to actcome when you grow up?

If something be done then it started and ended. So 'be done' is more like implying that a "be" was murdered from start to end in an instance of what is an act(ion).

When they say be you, they should rather say act you. Be real? No, act real. We didnt exist, no, we start existing. We live?, no, we "start to live". Dont let "to live" to a dictionary's "be" definition fool you because it makes it seem as though it's always.

When you see somebody you see an action. You're an action rather than a being. So what's up, my fellow human actions? Supreme or Higher Being? Naw, how about Supreme or Higher Action? At least we can tell a Higher Action isnt eternal to even begin to confuse us. "Supreme Being" been in error obviously to why it been leaving religion followers and atheists confused. Maybe they should teach Supreme/Higher Action in schools instead of just God and religion and evolution and intelligent design.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Mabus]

Move to philosophy thread line?
sorry bout the one line...

Originally posted by Mabus
Part 1:

Can an action be without a beginning/start?

No.

If you say no, then that is as good as saying existence must have popped into existence, correct?

No, because existence, in and of itself, is not an action. It's a state of being.

Part 2:

Are things matter (iron, etc) and non-matter (gravity, awareness/consciousness/person, etc) an action?

No. They're things. They may perform actions, but they are not actions themselves.

Certain might realize that matter and non-matter started.

Conservation of matter would indicate otherwise.

You're stretching, and I'm not convinced.

All I am getting from this thread is that you made up a bunch of stuff and removed a few words from your vocabulary in order to prove to "religion followers and atheists" that they are wrong and you can stump them. I admit that I am no genius but I fail to see the point. You can stump anyone if you jumble your words together and swap out words you don't like for words you just made up. Anyone can make up their own language and ask someone a question, then say "Ha, I got ya there".

Or am I just missing something?

No, because existence, in and of itself, is not an action. It's a state of being.

^^If existence is not an action, then why is it doing something?

No. They're things. They may perform actions, but they are not actions themselves.

^^You say they "may" perform? I never heard of gravity sitting there present not performing. Everything now deemed existence is a performance. Performances are actions.

The color blue... It is doing something. Color blue wouldnt exist if it weren't "doing" something. "Doing" implies an action. By existing it is doing something. And if doing something is an action, and actions have a start, then that says even the things that were here before our existence all have a begin/start to them such as the color blue and energy.

They think energy cant be created. But do they mean created by something else (something already existing?) or do they mean it cant pop into existence by nothing at all? They are never clear because they obviously dont know jack by assuming out their butts. Humans couldnt be first so of course no one can do anything except assume energy cant be created. Anything that "be" of course cant have a beginning start. So rather they should say energy cant "act" created. Maybe it was created (as in popped into existence) to act like it was not created (as in popped into existence or created by someone/thing already existing) since we humans werent here eternally.

Ppl are so conditioned by the word be or being that they fail to realize act, acting, action, activity, activation. "Act" has "being" murdered in truth as you witness existence right infront of your face or experience existence. It aint even a way to not understand that existence is an act, acting, action, activity, activation rolled in one.

The activity of the color blue is and is definitely appearent by an action (call it human actings) that may witness and experience. The color blue doesnt witness or experience, but that dont mean it aint active since it has existence that is with start/begin.

How many actions does a chair have? It has a soft or hard action, it has a color action, it has a shape action, it has a stationary action (it doesnt just get up and walk away on its own. It doesnt turn into a monster to grab you to keep you in place.), it has an endure action, and etc.

Further expaining the principle of existence:

Principle- an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

How can the start and lasting of an existence not imply it is an action in principle?

A car door that is a level of hard implies it along with it's hardness is an act(ion). Just because you dont feel it doesnt mean it isn't still acting hard.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by Mabus]

Let me conclude:

The first basic two actions or dual actions concerning person and thing:

Start (begin) and last (hold, remain, endure).

^^Those actions together mean someone/thing may/can start everlasting.

If you are a first, then that means you began and last.

The start is the Supreme Action and the last is the Higher Action. Yep, when you come to find out.

It isnt Highest Action with an est since action which start in general continues lacking a final action that can act concluded. You can never conclude you lived everlasting. You start everlasting you must continue for ever. It's as a void that can never be fulfilled. So there is nothing to conclude as a Highest Action if an action lacks completion in any way, shape, or form.

In the bible Jesus didnt say I am zero. For if Jesus said I am the Zero, then it would mean Jesus is an eternal being without start or stop. Jesus said I am Alpha...etc....first...etc. This concludes that existence isnt eternal. Non-existence (such as place which exists) is eternal with or without person or thing occupying it except it is not eternal with person or thing in position since person or thing popped into existing causes postion where there is then the here and the there beginning and ending though still with place. So place being eternal in all ways? No. So place being the Highest Be(ing)? No.

One of the specific actions is end (stop, expire, erase, delete, release, cease, vanish) of a person and thing.

It would act the opposite of Higher Action. So you should call it the Lower Action. It would act the same as Supreme Action only if it can cause something or someone not of the same source to end (stop, expire, erase, delete, cease, release, vanish).

The Lower Action comes in handy because you wouldnt want to make a mistake and have to live with it henceforth for ever. You wouldnt want to get trapped in a horrible way in any perspective and not be able to end what has you trapped or yourself even in an extreme case scenario.

In the antonym translation of the bible the word "be" actcomes "act". The word "behold" actcomes "act released". "because" actcomes "actcause". "being" actcomes "acting".



[edit on 11-7-2008 by Mabus]

Originally posted by Mabus
The color blue... It is doing something. Color blue wouldnt exist if it weren't "doing" something. "Doing" implies an action. By existing it is doing something. And if doing something is an action, and actions have a start, then that says even the things that were here before our existence all have a begin/start to them such as the color blue and energy.

Still not convincing me that attributes are actions. Blue is an attribute of an object. A blue thing reflects blue light and absorbs other light. It's the thing that's doing the reflecting/absorbing, not "blue". "So," you might argue, "the blue thing IS doing an action by reflecting the light!!!" But then you have to start breaking down what is a thing? Is it the object that's reflecting light? Aren't the attributes happening on an atomic level? So really the collection of atoms isn't doing anything in and of itself — just the individual atoms.

Same goes for the hardness or softness of an object. Hard is not an action. Hard is a descriptor that, at its root, MAY evoke the arrangement of atoms in a particularly rigid state.

If you insist on nit-picking semantics, you're going to have to take it to the atomic or sub-atomic level. You're not going to convince me that blue is doing something.

Originally posted by Mabus
Part 1:

A) Can an action be without a beginning/start?

If you say yes, then name an action that just is (or: was) without ever having to begin/start.

B) If you say no, then that is as good as saying existence must have popped into existence, correct?

They say actions speak louder than words. I personally think action is the obviously brightest answer to our once commonly held mystery about existence itself.

Part 2:

Are things matter (iron, etc) and non-matter (gravity, awareness/consciousness/person, etc) an action?

Part 1:

A) Nope.

B) Not really, i'm just a believer in the laws of causality.

I also happen to believe those laws are not absolute.

The rules change, is essentially what i'm saying.

Part 2:

I'm sorry, is that a rhetorical question?

I would have to say no, because unfortunately, there is a little thing called a radioactive half-life.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Mabus
The color blue... It is doing something. Color blue wouldnt exist if it weren't "doing" something. "Doing" implies an action. By existing it is doing something. And if doing something is an action, and actions have a start, then that says even the things that were here before our existence all have a begin/start to them such as the color blue and energy.

Still not convincing me that attributes are actions. Blue is an attribute of an object. A blue thing reflects blue light and absorbs other light. It's the thing that's doing the reflecting/absorbing, not "blue". "So," you might argue, "the blue thing IS doing an action by reflecting the light!!!" But then you have to start breaking down what is a thing? Is it the object that's reflecting light? Aren't the attributes happening on an atomic level? So really the collection of atoms isn't doing anything in and of itself — just the individual atoms.

Same goes for the hardness or softness of an object. Hard is not an action. Hard is a descriptor that, at its root, MAY evoke the arrangement of atoms in a particularly rigid state.

If you insist on nit-picking semantics, you're going to have to take it to the atomic or sub-atomic level. You're not going to convince me that blue is doing something.

You are basing what you say on witness and experience. If I ask you this: If a tree falls in a forest with no person around to witness it or experence it, did the action occur?

Based on your logic against blue as an action, you would say there was no action.

If we must relie on witness and experience, then we wont comprehend the big action picture. You heard of think outside the box? Well think outside witness/experience.

If there was never any light, blue would still come and remain as an action that just isnt caused or forced to reveal itself by a witness or an experiencer. When you turn off the lights, why does something blue remain blue when you turn the lights back on? Answer me this... Without light is there no blue anything (such as a blueberry)?



[edit on 11-7-2008 by Mabus]

Beginning-
1. an act or circumstance of entering upon an action or state: the beginning of hostilities.
7. first; opening: the beginning chapters of a book.

^^So in the bible Jesus reffered his self as the first which means I stand correct that existence is not eternal. And since beginning is an act(ion) it means any and every thing or one with a start is an act(ion).

Start-

1. to begin or set out, as on a journey or activity.
2. to appear or come suddenly into action, life, view, etc.; rise or issue suddenly forth.

^^If existence popped into existing, and no human could witness its "to appear", then they have themselves as experiencers of the very "to appear" which is an action which then also says that persons are each an action that lacked no "to appear" point.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Mabus]