I'm not saying anything new. The two 1st thing origin states are clearly stated in the OP.
Yes. Those things regarding origin states are in the OP, but they are not demonstrated to be correct as a step leading to your conclusion. Why do you think that pointing out that you already said something in the OP makes any progress towards demonstrating that your proof is correct?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
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.
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.
This has already been explained in this thread, but may as well do it again.
The history of science has been one of explaining the previously unexplained. Of all things currently unexplained, there is no way to tell which will one day be explained and which will never be explained. Experience hints strongly that the inexplicable portion must be very, very small.
Hence I can logically say the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
You can say it can't be explained using the precepts of logic which philosophers have developed over a few centuries. However, unless you can do the math, you can't say the origin of the universe cannot be explained by the sort of ridiculously high level, multidimensional, math/particle physics/geometry that a small number of mankind's finest minds are still developing. Day to day logic stops applying when it comes to this sort of stuff. Just accept it, and enjoy the ride as science takes us to ever weirder places ! :-)
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?