A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

I'm afraid you can't solve this puzzle with logic or philosophy - neither are science and it's science that you say can't explain it.Logic fails at your 2nd point. According to several physicists - most notably Prof Hawking - the universe as we see it now, arose from nothing. That isn't a concept you can't just think your way out of - you need some mathematical ability to play with the madness of quantum theory."Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

No, you're asserting that there must be a first thing. The fact that you think it's a logical conclusion from what you know about the world (and what the rest of us know about the world) is irrelevant. Logic is useful to a point, but it fails when it meets a paradox. A paradox just marks a boundary to what we can work out using thought alone.It's a complete cliche, but simply saying that there must be a first cause that solves your logical paradox simply introduces another - what caused the 'first' cause?'Sorry, your own logic points to the flaw in your logic.

Given that a cause without a cause AND a first cause are both logical paradoxes you've run out of logic. There's nowhere else to go - which is the clue that logic is not going to help you with this problem.

I'm saying that you can't use logic to solve this puzzle, because whichever way you go with it you hit a logical paradox. Logic is of absolutely no use to you because it fails at the infinite regress. If you believe that there must be a first cause and that is god. Then you MUST answer who caused god.By depending on the logic of the necessity for a first cause and then imagining a first cause without a first cause, you've rendered the logic null.The answer can't be found in logic. There's a chance it can be found in mathematics (that only a handful of people might think that they understand) but i think it more likely that we'll never know and can think of no good reason why we have the temerity to assume that we can.

Disagreeing isn't very useful, you need to show how to resolve the infinite regress of everything needing to have a first cause. No that's not all you're saying. You're saying that the logic doesn't fail but your logic is that there's a first cause - which I've shown you fails. Like I say, that fails - you can't argue that we need a first thing except for the first thing.But your overall premise is that I have said that science has already provided an explanation - it may not be correct and it's certainly not something I understand or will ever understand, but it's still an explanation that doesn't rely on the paradox of a first cause.I'm saying that science may be able to explain it and that it has nothing to do with logic I'm saying we reached the limit of what you can just think your way out of a few thousand years ago. If we are able to understand this, it's going to come from science and mathematics, not logic. I'm bringing it in because when someone argues that everything has to have a first cause, it almost always means that they want to gemmy a god in there at the start. Then you say that the god didn't have a cause, He's alway been there - brilliant!

So let's start again. Several people, have pointed out that your argumant fails at the 2 step. Others have said it fails at 5 and 6 and so on.My point is to say that in any case, this is not a puzzle that be can solved by classical logic because logic fails when it hits paradoxes and infinities.But that does not mean that science can't answer it because science does not rely on logic and several scientists, whose opinion we are obliged to take some notice of, believe that the universe needn't have a first cause or have been around forever - it can have just caused itself from nothing.Now, pretty much everyone would have an problem coming to terms with that, not least because the concept of nothing is not understandable in any normal useage. But also, because these same people tend to add that is possible because of a law which we must, it seems to most of us, pre-exist. Which of course makes no normal sense (hence logic can't help us yet again).If you'd started off by saying - 'gosh this is a puzzle isn't it? No-one seems to have an answer because of infinite regress - we just have more complicated argument leading to the same ultimate paradox' Most people would agree that you had a point. More or less.(They'd also say that it's not an original idea, but that doesn't usually put anybody off.)Edited by Tangle, : The usual spelling issues

It really doesn't matter what words you use, in the end they're only words - things we've invented to communicate and help us reason. They are completely useless when we try to use them to talk about things that are, in normal terms, irrational.The stuff we're talking about here can only be understood, if at all, using mathematics.

I think Ferdinand would be the first to acknowledge that there is a limit to what human language can convey and it fails entirely when it hits these big physics ideas. As you're now experiencing.Generally, language fails because, while the words we use to describe these things are understandable in themselves, they make no sense at all to the normal human mind.For example, can you tell me what the everyday word 'nothing' means? We can say - and completely understand the phrase "there's nothing in the cupboard" But when we say "there's nothing outside the universe" it makes no sense at all.Similarly, your uncaused first cause has no meaning - it's an un-resolveable paradox if you're restricted to words and logic.The only way these things can be understood - if at all - is through mathematics. Even those people that think they understand the concepts say that they make no normal sense.

.....and between what I mean as someone who runs a telephone company.The problem is that the term "nothing" only has meaning to the rest of us when it's inside something else. There's nothing for dinner. It falls over and refuses to get up when there's nothing on it's own, doing nothing. Nothing explains something, something doesn't explain nothing.Edited by Tangle, : Friggin' quotes again....

We can understand the phrases"I have something in my pocket" and "There is nothing in my pocket."But the phrase, "There is nothing outside my pocket" means, well nothing.We can also understand"There is something in the universe"But we can't understand there is "nothing outside the universe" because our minds don't have a way of catching hold of non-reality.Nothing means something when it's defined by other things. But as soon as it really means nothing - on it's own - with nothing real or imagined to set it against, we, or at least I, can't understand what it means. And I suspect it means nothing - that is, it's meaningless.The universe is very definitely not nothing, we're creatures built of something, used to experiencing our physical reality so the concept of a boundless universe with nothing beyond, is beyond normal imaginings. Or at least beyond mine and certainly beyond the normal useage of language.

It's ok, I've called the nurse.

That was a fucking good post. Thank you.