Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense
You are incorrect. For purposes of simplicity I stated in my OP that for my purposes "universe = multiverse", indicating anything that ever existed. I go on to state in the OP that God could be the first thing.
I could have been more clear in my OP but as I have stated I was trying to keep it simple. If you had participated in the earlier discussion of this thread I'm sure it would be clear to you. Plus, the logic only works when applied to all of existence. Nevertheless, I have edited the OP from "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence".
I don’t know if you don’t get my proof, or your just being argumentative. At the very least you have not read the conversation posted in this thread before you joined it. If you had made a sincere attempt to do so the answers would be clear to you.
The empty universe = the null set
There is nothing there, as in nothing exists. Literally, nothing.
I should think you would like my proof. With correct understanding it demonstrates your point.
The OP is a thought experiment and a proof. Many of you are too distracted by the empty universe. The empty universe is not integral to the proof.
It’s very simple: 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.
Also, anyone who says “We don’t know what we don’t know” is arguing from ignorance and takes the weakest of all possible positions. I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.
How do you differentiate between something that is "impossible to explain" temporarily right now with the information we have currently available to us... versus something that is "impossible to explain" for all time, regardless of what information may come to us in the future?
Without being able to read the future, or know about information we don't have right now... I don't see how you're able to do such a thing.
If you add "...from what we've able to gather right now." To the end of your proof then it makes more logical sense. Without that, the answer is "well, we might learn something new tomorrow, so your proof is useless for the future."
For 2nd things and beyond I would agree with you, but by its very nature the 1st thing has only two possible origin states and both are unexplainable. The logic dictates it.
At some "point" (which is not a place) all logic goes offline; the screen goes blank
I agree with you. There is a very real information wall at the beginning of all existence. All available information is contained in the 1st thing. It doesn't matter what it is. There can be no more discovery. This is why I say the 1st thing cannot be explained.
Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.
I understand and agree. As a 1st thing, the singularity fits perfectly into one of the two origin states I have discussed. It has essentially "always been there", uncaused and uncreated. It has no beginning and thus cannot be explained. The time element, and causal relationships are not important in this origin state.
Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.
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.
But the "First Thing" is not the universe, it is in the universe.
This has been dealt with previously. It doesn't matter what the first thing is, it is the first thing to ever exist anywhere. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.