A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Some modern theoretical physicist believe the universe can and will create itself from nothing. This is due to the nature of the laws of physics.We already concluded there is no explanation for where these fundamental laws have come from.So your premise that the universe can not be explained is flawed.
It can be explained by using the laws of physics.what can not be explained is where these laws came from.
There may or may not be a answer. Maybe the answer resides in another universe, Or maybe the laws are self existent.Your right if you mean to say that no one can explain where the laws of physics came from. But the universe's existence is a direct result of the Big Bang. That has pretty much become the most accepted theory to date. Frozen Accidents: Can the Laws of Physics be Explained? | NOVA | PBSEdited by 1.61803, : link and meme

What I really, really can't understand is the argument that some types of creationists think that, because the Universe started or maybe not started to exist billions of years ago; that is supposed to provide 'scientific' evidence for the existence of Gods today. It doesn't.Their arguments just don't make any sense to me. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Pressie,You will live longer and have less stress if you start to give zerofucks about what crazy people think. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

This has been dealt with previously. It doesn't matter what the first thing is, it is the first thing to ever exist anywhere. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.

Nice Red Herring, but I'm not biting. You might want to start your own thread though.

You are presenting an Argument from Ignorance and it is a logical fallacy. It is especially wrong in this case where I have shown an explanation to be logically impossible.

You can't explain something that has always existed and has no beginning. Likewise, you can't explain something that came from absolutely nothing (where by definition there is no math).

Honestly you are wrong in every one of your assertions. Please look again and give it more thought.

Yes, as has been discussed previously in this thread, the underlying physical laws of the universe could be the first thing. My proof still stands no matter what the first thing is.

I don't think you know what Argument from Ignorance fallacy is. What you referred to as saying, "We don't know what we don't know" (I'd state it differently, but we'll use yours for now) is a statement concerning ignorance. It is not the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.You are assuming that something cannot come from nothing. We already know this isn't true. Since your "proof" includes this incorrect assumption, it is wrong.But something coming from nothing may not be the explanation for the origin of the universe. We cannot currently explain how the universe came to be, and we don't know whether or not we'll ever have an explanation.I don't see the point of repeating, "I've proved it, I've proved it, I've proved it, can't you see I've proved it," instead of discussing the issues people have raised with your "proof".--Percy

I'm just trying to understand why you think a tautology is an important statement.If the "first thing" is outside the universe (see brane theory for creating universes) how is it a "first thing" for the universe?Or consider two universes (physics allows multiple universes to exist) ... is a "first thing" in one also the "first thing" in the other or did one come before the other?Enjoy

Its important because it is not generally recognized. Most people don't think about it, yet it is logically obvious. Thank you for calling my proof statement a tautology because it is true by necessity and by its logical form.As I have stated, when I say "universe" I mean:universe = multiverse = all of existenceThe First Thing is the first thing to exist anywhere, taking into account all of existence and not just this universe.

What if the first thing was nothing?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

False. You are presenting an unknown future discovery to make your argument. It is in fact an Argument from Ignorance. False. Your nothing is a quantum nothing. If you have been paying attention you know I am referring to an absolute nothing. I have called it the null set. False. I am discussing issues as they are raised and offering reminders of what has already been discussed.

A confusion of terms and another red herring.