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

In the history of philosophy, no attempt to argue God from non-God has ever been successful. That said, your attempt is innovative and interesting.Scientists used to believe the universe was eternal. We now know that is not true. Some of the responses here have attempted to disprove your argument by appealing to a naturalistic cause for the Big Bang. If it was possible to prove a naturalistic cause to the Big Bang, then nature could be the something that has always been here. Perhaps that something is just a quantum field.At any rate, naturalistic causes for the Big Bang can be, and have been, mathematically ruled out. That is to say, it is impossible for nature to be the cause of a low entropy Big Bang. Let me explain.You always expect nature to result in higher entropy. If a naturalistic Big Bang was possible, you would expect it to result in a high entropy universe like a black hole. Yet the Big Bang resulted in a very low entropy universe. Roger Penrose has calculated the odds of nature giving birth to a low entropy universe as one in 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. In other words, if you were to write out the number using standard notation — 1,000,000. etc. then you could put a zero on every proton, neutron, electron and photon in the universe and you would run out of room.Listen to Roger Penrose describe it himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvV2Xzh11r8When you write Consider the beginning of the universe, you are dealing with scientifically knowable information. Your proof actually contains some science and this is what makes your argument interesting. Coming from a philosophical background, you probably want your argument to be completely science free — but I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I think if you could put more science into your argument, it might make it stronger.

Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time.You may have heard that if you have a roomful of monkeys and infinite time, they will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. Not true. They will not even type one sonnet.Someone tested the hypothesis with real monkeys. Here's what they learned: "Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it."

I found a news story on a test by "virtual monkeys." You can read it here Monkeys at typewriters 'close to reproducing Shakespeare'In the article the researcher is claiming the monkeys are close to reproducing the complete works of Shakespears, but there is a huge problem with the claim. He is accepting it in nine letter blocks and the computer is matching the blocks to something in Shakespeare. This is completely meaningless. Among nine letter sy there is only 5.5 trillion possibilities. This random letter generator has already produced 5 trillion of them.here is one of Shakespeare's most famous sonnets:Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.There are 619 total characters counting spaces. No random letter generator would ever produce that exact text (including "return" button) even in infinite time.

Thank you for the education regarding Borel's Law. That was interesting reading. I do not have the reference in front of me that spoke on the mathematical impossibility so I cannot refer back to it.Also, the issue of shuffling a deck of cards is interesting. While I can see that a random shuffle would result in a statistically rare order, the number you provided seems incredibly high.However, even if true the examples I have provided still hold. If a random letter generator (not live monkeys because we know that would never work) attempted to reproduce a single Shakespearean sonnet, it would fail even in infinite time. A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.Plus, some keys have to be struck at the same time. You have to hold down the 'shift' key while striking another letter to produce a capital. A random letter generator, programmed to randomly produce capitals, would no doubt produce capitals in the wrong places.It is impossible to produce a Shakespearean sonnet at random even in infinite time.Edited by designtheorist1, : Typos!

That isn't true. Penrose doesn't says ANYTHING about natural causes in the clip you posted.Penrose is talking about the odds of this special condition coming about by chance. Chance is another term for "naturalistic." Penrose admits this is incredible organization of the early universe.Penrose is an atheist. His view on the organization of the early universe has caused him to reject the usual view of the Big Bang. In his book Cycles of Time, he has proposed the previously debunked Cycle Theory with some twists.While Penrose's Cycle Theory does not work, he is right that the early universe could not have come about by chance.

That is tenet of faith for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. I believe the view is demonstrably false.