A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Yes. Those things regarding origin states are in the OP, but they are not demonstrated to be correct as a step leading to your conclusion. Why do you think that pointing out that you already said something in the OP makes any progress towards demonstrating that your proof is correct?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You make good points. I would admit to a flair for the dramatic in my writing, but this forum might not be the best place for it.

A lot of people on this forum take things VERY literally.

I’ve presented my best reasoned arguments. Let the reader give credence where he may.

I wanted to thank everyone for their participation in this thread. Your comments and insights are valuable, appreciated and affect my thinking on this subject. It's why I come here.As a final consolidation of my position, I have revised my proof statement a bit and when I present this argument in the future I'll be stating it in this way:************************************************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- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explainedWhere: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence************************************************I have also updated the OP.Edited by nano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

- 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

​

- Therefore, the universe cannot be explained

​

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

---

But you have still never explained why those things are impossible to explain someday?Or why there are only the two options?So I don't quite see how you really have anything!

You still have the same problem.Just because you or I or anyone-alive-right-now can't explain something... doesn't make it impossible.Answer this question: Is it possible for someone to not know how to do something. Then, 300 years later, someone comes up with an idea that makes it possible? Examples: Invention of fire. Invention of flight. Invention of combustible engine. Invention of computers. etc...If your answer to that question is "yes" then your Proof Statement is false.
If your answer to that question is "no" then you're demonstrably wrong.If you want to claim that something is impossible, then you have to prove it. Until you do that, your Proof Statement is nothing more than an empty claim.

Only two? Really? How so?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

After all of this, do you have any empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of Spooks today?

Even though my proof statement has been criticized as "obvious" in this very thread, I will attempt to explain.The First Thing is the first thing to ever exist. At the point of its existence there is nothing else in the universe. Therefore there is no mechanism available to explain it and pointing to the first thing as the cause of its own existence is a logical fallacy (Circular Reasoning). Hence I can logically say the origin of the universe cannot be explained.There are only two origin states for the same reasons as stated above. One can only point to the First Thing or...nothing.Saying "We don't know what we don't know" is an Argument from Ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

But the "First Thing" is not the universe, it is in the universe.Enjoy

Nope, the first thing is that we don't understand the first thing about what something and nothing are."obvious" doesn't begin to describe it.

This has already been explained in this thread, but may as well do it again.The history of science has been one of explaining the previously unexplained. Of all things currently unexplained, there is no way to tell which will one day be explained and which will never be explained. Experience hints strongly that the inexplicable portion must be very, very small.--Percy

You can say it can't be explained using the precepts of logic which philosophers have developed over a few centuries. However, unless you can do the math, you can't say the origin of the universe cannot be explained by the sort of ridiculously high level, multidimensional, math/particle physics/geometry that a small number of mankind's finest minds are still developing. Day to day logic stops applying when it comes to this sort of stuff. Just accept it, and enjoy the ride as science takes us to ever weirder places ! :-)

You are wrong about those logical fallacies.

quote:

---

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

---

quote:

---

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

---

Honestly, your "proof" is closer to circular reasoning than any of the rebuttals to it. Just because something is logically sound does not mean that it is true.Since your premises are flawed, your argument fails.