At the present there is no scientific THEORY of how the universe began to exist. There are several guesses but there is nothing that reaches a consensus.
That means that the existence of the universe can not be explained by science.
The second sentence does not follow from the first.
There are many historical discoveries where there was a time with no scientific THEORY of how a thing worked, there were several guesses but there was nothing that reached a consensus.
Then new information came along, and a scientific theory was developed and a scientific explanation was accepted.
It's quite possible that we simply do not have the information available to us now but at some point in the future we could obtain information that allows for a scientific explanation of the existence of the universe.
It's not valid to say something can never be known just because it's not known right now.
Perhaps it can be explained by science, and we just don't know how to do that right now.
The only way the existence of the universe can be explained so far is by the uncaused cause mentioned in the OP.
I wouldn't call that an explanation.
I would simply say that the existence of the universe is currently unexplained.
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.
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.
No, the logic does not dictate it.
Phew. That was easy. Thought you were going to have an actual discussion there or something.
This is the part where you actually describe how the logic dictates such a thing... if you can, anyway. My point is that you can't do this because you can't "dictate" that an alternative cannot exist simply because you (or even "we") cannot think of an alternative right now.
That is a logical fallacy.
If order for the logic to "dictate it" you have to actually prove that any and all alternatives are impossible.
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.