A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

You still don't seem to know what the Argument from Ignorance fallacy is. I wasn't claiming to have proved anything logically. I only described science's history as one of explaining the previously unexplained. Given that history, you're very unlikely to have found anything forever inexplicable. Yes, I know, but you're simply assuming there was once an "absolute nothing". There's no evidence of this. Assumptions with no evidence make for poor proofs.Beyond that, science doesn't prove things. It assembles evidence in support of hypotheses that might one day gather a consensus and become a theory. Discussion like your series of one and two line responses from yesterday? And you were reminded of a good bit yourself, to which you responded by simply declaring your original assertion again.--Percy

Why can't you ?

A tautology is mundanely true because it references itself, and is therefore meaningless. Ah, so you redefine words to maintain your dogma. Unfortunately for you, that does not make it true.And I noticed you didn't address the rest of my post:

quote:

---

If the "first thing" is outside the universe (see brane theory for creating universes) how is it a "first thing" for the universe?

---

In fact all your replies seem to be one-liners to one issue at a time. I'll keep this in mind.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : quote

Actually it is an aspect of current thinking in physics, that out of nothing two things appear, a particle and an antiparticle that when combined become nothing.So you have nothing, then two things, then nothing.You can even get several particles all at once, but never a single one, just as this can be happening simultaneously ...Thus for your tautology to be true the "First Thing" has to be nothing.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I'm trying to show you that without defining 'nothing' you can't even start your argument. I don't know what nothing is, do you? Is it even possible for nothing to exist? How would you know?

Very interesting interview with Leonard Mlodinow on "Why Is There Anything At All?" It gets good athttps://youtu.be/tzsE6xmfpTQ?t=6m7sHighlights:7:34 - "Physicists can't go beyond that"8:10 - "Physics by definition can't go beyond that"8:57 - "I don't require that physics or science explains everything. It's OK that there are things that aren't explained by it that we have to think about in other ways"

Another very interesting interview on "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?". This time with Steven Weinberg."Steven Weinberg is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles."At 22:24 he says "We will never have an answer."https://youtu.be/okiDJOK3hNU?t=22m24s

That may be, it could also be that the nature of nothing is such that it "wants" or has a tendency to express itself as a net 0 sum of opposites. Or -2+1+1=0.Like 2 virtual particles coming in to existence from nothing and going back to nothing the whole universe is just nothing split in to opposite parts.

We have two possibilities:1) no universe (or multiverse) exists and there is nothing,2) at least one universe exists and there is something.These possible occurrences are independent and therefore have equal probability of occurring, i. e., each has a 50% chance of occurring.Therefore, the reason there is something instead of nothing is simply because there is a 50% chance of that being so.
____________________________
In a far off none existent universe, none existent philosophers are arguing over why there is nothing instead of something. They are funded by non-existent government agencies.

Nope. Because they are independent, one might have a 99.99999999% chance and the other 0.00000001%. Or any combination of numbers in between.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Those two numbers add up to 101%

I won the lottery, or I did not. Each has a fifty percent chance of occurring?Your argument is just as silly as the one that this thread is based on. I assume highlighting the silliness is your point.

Shouldn't drink and type.....fixed

but isn't that silly as we are explaining it?

.
.
..
.Edited by nano, : Punctuation correction for proper verbal emphasisEdited by AdminPhat, : spam