A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Beyond that, your initial argument was something a bit different. You simply quoted some mathematical symbols and suggested we look at them. But the braces you drew are just delineation. They don't represent anything physical.Your current argument, as I see it, is akin to telling me that I have a stamp collection, but that my collection has no stamps and never did. Actually, I don't have a stamp collection and I don't want one. Interesting argument. Maybe you have something here. Before I ask you what you mean, I'll read more of what you've already posted. But perhaps this does not. Arguments from analogy are not, in general, valid. Analogies are good for illustrating, but not for necessarily for proving an argument to be correct.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Cat So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.It would be an uncaused eternal entity.God Bless,

If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing? I dunno, he's not saying much more. In order to go from non-existence to things existing, you have to put non-existence inside some kind of container and then have an outside influence kick off the first things.The problem with the OP is that our universe doesn't fit that model. At best, it's a proof that a particular universe isn't "explainable", it's just not describing this universe. Sort of, but it doesn't really matter if that universe contains things or not. And if you make, for that universe, time in the past direction finite then you escape the otherwise inevitable heat death.But I reject the concept of an "empty universe". The universe is the sum of all things, not a container that may or may not have things in it.

I was just arguing that the empty set is not nothing. It's that a stamp collection that contains no stamps isn't a stamp collection at all.Can you have a chemical element with no atoms?Can you have a society with no people?Can you have a universe with no things?I say no.

Regardless of whether I never had a stamp collection, or whether I have just bought an album in anticipation of collecting stamps, or whether some rogue came by and stole all the stamps I've spent 10 years collecting, we might correctly say that the set of all stamps that I possess is described by the null set. In the latter case we might still say I own a stamp set, but that it is not in my possession.In short, the null set does not help us understand the states of existence or what came before.

The OP is a thought experiment and a proof. Many of you are too distracted by the empty universe. The empty universe is not integral to the proof.It’s very simple: Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist. It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain, or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain.Also, anyone who says We don’t know what we don’t know is arguing from ignorance and takes the weakest of all possible positions. I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.

You could state that, logically, the petticoat of the universe will never be explained. That's because it doesn't wear a petticoat, cannot wear a petticoat, and doesn't require one.It doesn't have an origin, either, because an origin would be part of it.The universe has to be there, no thing can exist as an alternative, and that clearly explains its existence.

How do you differentiate between something that is "impossible to explain" temporarily right now with the information we have currently available to us... versus something that is "impossible to explain" for all time, regardless of what information may come to us in the future?Without being able to read the future, or know about information we don't have right now... I don't see how you're able to do such a thing.If you add "...from what we've able to gather right now." To the end of your proof then it makes more logical sense.
Without that, the answer is "well, we might learn something new tomorrow, so your proof is useless for the future."

Can you have space with nothing in it? I think you can.As I understand it, the universe is the space; the "things" in it are just "wrinkles" in the space. So yes, I would say you could have a universe with no things - perfectly flat.

H Cat Non existence has no properties as it is the opposite of existence.God Bless,

Then it cannot be, and you cannot talk of if it is.Edited by Cat Sci, : is > it

quote:

---

A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot be Explained

​

1. Consider an empty universe.

a. There is nothing to cause anything to happen.

​

2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.

1. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.
2. It doesn't matter what it is.

​

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

​

4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.
5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

​

6. Ultimate Corollary - Given that the universe itself cannot be explained, then nothing in the universe can be ultimately explained. (This corollary was added to the original proof on 5/21/16 by nano with admin permission. See Message 166)

---

As a Christian, I would agree that God is an uncaused first cause...but would not agree that just because a Creator cannot be explained or defined it then follows that creation itself has a similar limitation.

No wonder my face has wrinkles! I knew there had to be an explanation....

I agree. Never say never!

Hi Cat Just because you can't fathom non existence does not mean there could not be an absence of anything.God Bless,