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

I don't think one can prove God exists, but I do think its possible to prove that the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained. I do this by using logic and/or set-theory. Therefore, I propose a discussion of my proof with an eye towards identifying flaws in my logic.Here is my proof:1. Consider the beginning of the universe.
2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".
3. By logical definition, a true "first thing" has no cause, since otherwise it would not be a first thing.
4. By logical definition, "something that has always been here" has no cause, since it has always been here.
5. The "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" encompass the entire set of logical possibilities for the origin of the universe.
6. The scientific method is based on cause and effect.
7. Since the "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" have no cause, they cannot be scientifically explained.
8. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained.The word "universe" can be freely exchanged with "multiverse" if you wish.I originally posted this at http://www.mektek.net/...-cannot-be-scientifically-explained, but I think I need a more focused forum for this subject. So that is what brings me here today.

This topic is interesting. Origin Of The Universe Theories
Scientific Methoda Proof is defined as --Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.We can discuss this either in Faith/Belief or perhaps Miss. topics.Or would you prefer it be scientific? If so, lets refine your "proof".Add by edit: I read your thread at the other site and it is quite well done. Im going to let you edit the topic and refine the proof a bit and then I'll promote you. Do you want to allow input from science only?Edited by AdminPhat, :

I envision this as not a scientific proof, but rather one derived from classical Logic and logical definitions. Remember that Logic class you might have taken in college? It's usually part of the Philosophy department. That's what I am going for.For example: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Or maybe something like "If A and B are true then C must be true" if given certain logical, albeit in this example case hypothetical, associations.I don't think there is much debate about the importance of cause and effect in the Scientific Method. So, in my "proof", everything hangs on what the logical definition of "first" is and what "has always been here" logically means. It also relies on how a set is populated and defined.One key question is "Can the set of all possibilities at the origin of the universe be reduced, simplified and described logically as:Either
1) There was a "first thing"
or
2) "Something has always been here".Indeed, I believe this is the primary crux of my argument and may be the more interesting place to start. Nevertheless, I can certainly simplify and streamline my "proof". I'm not sure about the input from science only.Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Thread copied to the A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.