A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Certainly. And it could be a horse box without a horse. If we could take everything out of our box, every particle, and try to get an absence of space time itself, what might happen at the point where we seem to achieve it, instead of the desired result, whoosh "big bang", we've created another set of dimensions, lots of somethingness, and become gods.That may be the sort of thing that happened somewhere (not nowhere) 14 billion years ago.We would, in the course of the experiment, have explained somethingness as necessary. We would have reasonably explained the universe (not just our dimensions) by showing that reality doesn't tolerate true nothingness even in a small area.In order for someone to have a proof that the universe is inexplicable, they need to show that it can never be explained without reference to prior cause.It may be worth noting that the universe, for the same reason that it has no prior cause for its existence, has no prior constraints. If things can be explained by prior cause, why can't they be explained by the absence of constraints?Why does the universe exist?Because it encompasses all things and does exist, it doesn't require a prior cause, and there could never have been anything to prevent it.

To one of us.If a logical argument assumes any thing to be necessary, it can't be used against the necessity of somethingness. If logic is contingent, it requires somethingness.Does logic necessarily exist, or is it contingent?All things are necessary or contingent
The universe cannot have a prior cause
The universe cannot be contingent on anything
The universe is necessary

That's an explanation by analogy.Your O.P. is actually a partial explanation of the universe, which goes like this:First, you define what we mean by universe. It encompasses everything so it's the set of all things. Then you point out that, as such, no single thing or collection of things can be its prior cause.You then point out that this would apply whether the universe popped into existence or always exists. That's as far as you go, because you mistakenly assume at this point that what your explanation has established is that the universe is inexplicable.What you could have done is continued with the logical explanation after adding the observation that the universe does exist. Therefore, the universe does not require a prior cause. Therefore, any explanation of the existence of the universe doesn't have to refer to a prior cause now that we've reached the point in our explanation that it doesn't have one and doesn't need one. We can also conclude that the suggestion at the end of your O.P., that the universe always existed, is correct, because there cannot be anything (including time) prior to it, so there is no "prior".Having followed this through, I'm claiming that the existence of the universe is explained by necessity. If there's no possible alternative, then it has to exist. So, do you understand why Dr. Adequate and I are discussing whether or not pure nothingness can be regarded as "possible"? Because the O.P. definition of the universe encompasses everything, pure nothingness is the only conceivable alternative.That's where a discussion on whether or not the universe can be explained inevitably leads.

I propose that there's always somewhere and always something and that there's no such thing as "before time".You're probably misunderstanding the O.P. It allows for a first thing and allows it to be your god, but merely points out that a first thing can't have a prior cause (obviously) and therefore can't be explained by one (obviously). Read "universe" in the O.P. as meaning "everything" including all gods.Necessity Bless

You would need to change the wording of your proof if you accept that anything could possibly be explained in any way other than by prior cause. That still leaves you with a proof that the universe cannot have a prior cause (and, logically, that it cannot be explained by a prior cause; and, logically, that it doesn't require a prior cause, 'cos it's here).If you enjoy doing proofs, here's a good suggestion for a title:"A Simplified Proof That No Thing or Set of Things Could Prevent The Universe From Existing".Once we've defined the universe as including all things, it follows logically, doesn't it?

Now you need to show that the non-existence of everything can exist in order to support your claim that the universe can't be explained.If non-existence can't exist, then the existence of a universe is explained by necessity. There has to be one.

If A caused B is an explanation of B, why isn't B caused B an explanation of B, and why isn't "B was always there" an explanation of B?If the universe doesn't require a prior cause (and clearly it cannot) then why do you insist that the absence of {something unnecessary for its existence} means that its existence can't be explained? Where, when and how can pure nothingness be witnessed? And what thing or set of things could cause anything other than the universe?

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.

Oh where and when can non-existence be?
Its present absence always eludes me
I've heard it said
Look overhead
In Heaven non-existence you will see