Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 12:43 PM
333 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo (6 members, 327 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,247 Year: 28,853/21,208 Month: 919/1,847 Week: 294/475 Day: 59/82 Hour: 3/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10121
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 286 of 320 (785970)
06-14-2016 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by nano
06-13-2016 7:56 AM


I'm not saying anything new. The two 1st thing origin states are clearly stated in the OP.

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by nano, posted 06-13-2016 7:56 AM nano has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 287 of 320 (786000)
06-14-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Diomedes
06-13-2016 3:55 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Diomedes, posted 06-13-2016 3:55 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 06-14-2016 1:15 PM nano has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13982
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 288 of 320 (786001)
06-14-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by nano
06-14-2016 1:10 PM


nano writes:

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by nano, posted 06-14-2016 1:10 PM nano has not yet responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 289 of 320 (786002)
06-14-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Stile
06-13-2016 9:39 AM


Stile writes:

If order for the logic to "dictate it" you have to actually prove that any and all alternatives are impossible.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 9:39 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 290 of 320 (793175)
10-23-2016 6:20 AM


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 explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

************************************************

I have also updated the OP.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 10-23-2016 9:19 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 292 by Stile, posted 10-23-2016 10:38 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Pressie, posted 10-24-2016 8:42 AM nano has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29779
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 291 of 320 (793179)
10-23-2016 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nano
10-23-2016 6:20 AM


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!


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nano, posted 10-23-2016 6:20 AM nano has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 292 of 320 (793183)
10-23-2016 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nano
10-23-2016 6:20 AM


nano writes:

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 universe cannot be explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nano, posted 10-23-2016 6:20 AM nano has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 293 of 320 (793208)
10-24-2016 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nano
10-23-2016 6:20 AM


Nano writes:

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:-

Only two? Really? How so?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nano, posted 10-23-2016 6:20 AM nano has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 294 of 320 (793342)
10-26-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


After all of this, do you have any empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of Spooks today?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 295 of 320 (793367)
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2016 5:04 PM nano has responded
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 5:54 PM nano has responded
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 10-27-2016 7:29 AM nano has responded
 Message 299 by vimesey, posted 10-27-2016 9:14 AM nano has responded
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2016 9:57 AM nano has responded
 Message 301 by 1.61803, posted 10-27-2016 10:47 AM nano has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19309
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 296 of 320 (793370)
10-26-2016 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


The First Thing is the first thing to ever exist. At the point of its existence there is nothing else in the universe. ...

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

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 1:34 PM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5246
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 297 of 320 (793373)
10-26-2016 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


nano writes:

The First Thing is the first thing to ever exist. At the point of its existence there is nothing else in the universe.

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.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 1:45 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16319
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 298 of 320 (793381)
10-27-2016 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 1:47 PM Percy has responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 299 of 320 (793384)
10-27-2016 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


Hence I can logically say the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

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 ! :-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 2:19 PM vimesey has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11850
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 300 of 320 (793387)
10-27-2016 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


pointing to the first thing as the cause of its own existence is a logical fallacy (Circular Reasoning)

...

Saying "We don't know what we don't know" is an Argument from Ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

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.

Hence I can logically say the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

Just because something is logically sound does not mean that it is true.

Since your premises are flawed, your argument fails.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017