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.
a 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?
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.
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."
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
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.
Perhaps. But even if true, applying logic to the universe doesn't necessarily mean anything. The universe isn't constrained by your application of logic. Some parts of the universe are extremely illogical (a-logical?)... they do not function logically consistent. Therefore, even if you could list "the entire set of logical possibilities for the origin of the universe," it could still be irrelevant to the explanation for the origin of the universe.
6. The scientific method is based on cause and effect.
Is it? I don't think it is (but I might be wrong). I think cause and effect is a tool that is strongly used by science. But I wouldn't say that science (or it's methodology) is based on cause and effect. Science is based on observation and prediction. Cause and effect is a great tool for such things in the environment we find ourselves in... but it is not necessarily a requirement.
But I wouldn't say that science (or it's methodology) is based on cause and effect. Science is based on observation and prediction.
What would be an example of science being done that does not employ the constraints of cause and effect? Science is the observation of a cause or an effect and then predicting the cause or the effect as the case may be. You cant do much science without the principal of cause and effect.
What would be an example of science being done that does not employ the constraints of cause and effect? Science is the observation of a cause or an effect and then predicting the cause or the effect as the case may be. You cant do much science without the principal of cause and effect.
Observation: All rocks I've ever seen are hard. Prediction: All rocks are hard.
That is some very simple science. It's wrong, but it's science. We can find soft rocks, and amend this little "theory" or we can not find soft rocks and keep this theory going.
Rocks do not "cause" hardness. It is a simple observation and a simple prediction. It is simple science. No?
I don't think there is much debate about the importance of cause and effect in the Scientific Method.
Not only is "cause and effect" not mentioned in the scientific method, the scientific method was used to discover effects which have no apparent cause.
2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".
Not so. Imagine a universe where an object lives for one second before dying and creating the next object. I can label each object with an integer and I'll choose to call one of the objects "0". The list of objects now runs like this is time:
You can even set up universes like this consistent with special relativity and having complicated dynamical laws, which are mathematically and logically consistent.
You'll notice that there is neither a first object, nor is there an object that has always been there. Hence proposition 2 is false, there are logically consistent realities where it is broken.
4. By logical definition, "something that has always been here" has no cause, since it has always been here.
I can set up a universe where time only lasts for, let us say, one hundred years, but it loops around on itself, t = 100 and t = 0 being the same point. I could place a gas in this toy universe that evolves as time continues. The state of the gas at t = 56 is caused by the state at t = 55. The state at t = 99 causes the state at t = 0. Hence this gas is "always there" and yet each state has a unique cause.
6. The scientific method is based on cause and effect.
There are quantum mechanical predictions which make no use of cause and effect (as well as simpler observational theories like Stile mentioned). These predictions have been verified using the scientific method.
Without 2., 4. and 6. I do not see how the conclusion can be reached.
I think nano's ideas are basically sound, apart from his use of the word "scientifically" which is superfluous.
To explain why there is something rather than nothing, we'd need to point to a cause. What cause? A cause would be a thing, which would make it one of the things we needed to explain. Either we have an infinite regress of causes without a first cause, in which case we haven't answered the question, or we have a first cause without an explanation, in which case we still haven't answered the question.
However, the word "scientifically" is, as I say, superfluous. Because it's not like there's some unscientific answer which would keep us off the horns of the dilemma.
To explain why there is something rather than nothing, we'd need to point to a cause.
Are we sure about this? I certainly agree that it's helpful, and generally the way we do things pretty much all the time. But is it necessary?
Can the answer be "there is something rather than nothing because this is the way things are." And then involve a description of how we know that things are "this way?"
Maybe if there doesn't have to be something... then you are correct? But maybe if there does indeed have to be something... then you could be incorrect if we are able to figure it out?
I would say the odds are in the favour of us not being able to find out. But, that doesn't make it impossible, no?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
