The Reality Paradox

The Reality Paradox, though I came up with it, has been thought of by many before me. It is I, though, that thinks he has finally found a viable solution to the biggest question in the Universe. “Where did we come from?”

The supposed paradox, which concerns the beginning of space/time and matter, goes a little like this:

1. All things are caused.

2.It’s impossible for something to have always existed.

3. Circular reasoning is impossible, nothing can cause itself.

If you sum-up the implications of just these 3 principles alone it seems to say that the existence of the Universe is impossible.

Out of all my short time as an amateur philosopher this one thing boggled my mind night and day to wits-end until I finally came up with a conclusion that miraculously seems to work around the 3 principles without contradicting them. And I’m quite sure that no one, at least publicly, has thought of it before.

But before I get to it, let me first offer a counter argument:

The Reality Paradox has seemed for many people to be the highest evidence available for the existence of a God through what is called “The Cosmological Argument”. The Cosmological Argument is pretty much the same as my Reality Paradox except it also states that this is proof for the existence of a “First Cause” or an “Uncaused Caused”. The problem with this is that it must brake one of the principles. Supporters of the Cosmological Argument sometimes say that God makes the rules thus that God could be exempt from anyone of them. Besides this being an entirely intellectually lazy way of explain things—GODIDIT!—it also makes no sense and here is why:

To my reasoning it seems quite apparent—never-minding silly definitions and word-games—that “Reality” and the “Universe” are actually two separate things with one contained within the other. The Universe is defined, according to me, as being made of space/time and matter while Reality is made of the logical laws that govern these things. There may actually be other universes which are in existence and may or may not seem considerably different but must also be bound by the laws of Reality. One such law of Reality is that Paradoxes don’t work; either something which is based off of logic that is called a paradox isn’t actually a paradox or one of the supposedly logical premises is flawed. Another universe(or anything else for that matter, including a God) cannot, by definition, exist outside of Reality because Reality is existence. To be outside Reality is to be non-existent. To be inside Reality is to be bound by it’s laws. The statement that a God can exist which is not bound by the laws of Reality in itself is contradictory.

What’s so important about making that distinction?

When you think about it deeply enough you can then see that the “Reality Paradox” now immediately becomes the “Universe Paradox”. Why? Because we can now see that the laws of Reality do not exist because they always have(since time is only a principle of a universe and does not apply to the broadness of Reality), nor because they were caused by circular reasoning, nor because they are caused by anything else. Rather! THEY EXIST BECAUSE THEY MUST EXIST. It is actually paradoxical for them not to. Everything must be bound by logic. Logic being the absolute decider of the laws of Reality. (Logic in an absolute objective sense not a personal subjective sense)

Where am I going with this? I have not yet explained the answer to the Universe Paradox(So now named).

I’m sorry to say this is where it starts to get fuzzy. We are entering into a very abstract grey area now. For this is the point I have been getting to:

If Reality exists because it must exist than perhaps the Universe does as well. Perhaps the Universe is…somehow…an implication of Reality.

I know this is not a completely satisfactory answer because I have offered no logic for how it would be such an implication. BUT! It proves as not only a POSSIBLE answer but also the ONLY answer so far which does not brake any of the 3 principles stated in the Reality Paradox.

So…half-satisfactorily, what it boils down to is: We are here because we must logically be here even though we don’t completely now what that logic is.

It may not have a complete answer for why it would be correct just yet but it’s the only answer that does not have any see-able reasons for why it would be incorrect. All the other answers do and this stands as it’s only real reason for why it may be correct.

I’ve constructed a theory for the origin of the Universe, I do not have faith in it as I do not have faith in anything else. I see it as a strong possibility based on the critical deduction of reason. You be the judge for yourself on whether it seems viable. I would be highly interested in any comments you may have, leave one if you’d like.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “The Reality Paradox”

  1. TwoEdgedSword Says:

    Man… I wish you lived down the street from me so we could get a coffee or beer or whatever and sit and talk about all this! I love this kind of stuff and the debate/discussion of it only improves those involved! I find some fault with some of what you are saying… but I think it’s fault that you already acknowledge. Like the “We are here because we must logically be here even though we don’t completely now what that logic is.” statement. Wouldn’t that be illogical? To say we logically exist but we don’t know what that logic is… if you don’t know what it is how can you say it’s logical?

    Also, I think you are acknowledging that with your premise that the universe is not reality… is that what you’re saying? If the universe is outside of reality (reality being contained within) then it would not be subject to the laws of reality. From what I can tell this is the same logic that you said was silly for the existence of a God outside of reality. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

    Anyway… like I said, I love this kind of thing. It’s a little more difficult to hash it out through blogs and emails, but still fun!

    • “To say we logically exist but we don’t know what that logic is… if you don’t know what it is how can you say it’s logical?”

      I never said it was proven to be logical, I openly admitted it wasn’t. But I did show how it is the only solution which has not been shown as illogical. At least not yet. The way I see it, it may be an unproven possibility but it’s also the only possibility we know of right now.

      “Also, I think you are acknowledging that with your premise that the universe is not reality… is that what you’re saying? If the universe is outside of reality (reality being contained within) then it would not be subject to the laws of reality.”

      I did indeed say they are different and I did indeed say one was contained within the other except you got the two mixed around; the Universe is contained within Reality.

  2. TwoEdgedSword Says:

    “I never said it was proven to be logical, I openly admitted it wasn’t. But I did show how it is the only solution which has not been shown as illogical. At least not yet. The way I see it, it may be an unproven possibility but it’s also the only possibility we know of right now.”

    Can you assume that a solution is logical until proven otherwise? If you can’t prove that something is illogical, should we accept it as a possibility until otherwise proven?

    If an unproven possibility can be accepted unless otherwise proven to be wrong, then wouldn’t God be a possibility. Not any specific God, but God in general. Some sort of uncreated being?

    • “Can you assume that a solution is logical until proven otherwise?”

      No

      “If you can’t prove that something is illogical, should we accept it as a possibility until otherwise proven?”

      Yes

      “If an unproven possibility can be accepted unless otherwise proven to be wrong, then wouldn’t God be a possibility. Not any specific God, but God in general. Some sort of uncreated being?”

      Haha, that’s a coercive question that lures in a certain answer based on a false premise. The answer is that God would be a possibility if he hadn’t be proven illogical but he indeed has been. 🙂

  3. TwoEdgedSword Says:

    Hmm… I have not heard of these proofs. Would you care to share one?

    • TwoEdgedSword Says:

      I hope you don’t think I am trying to divert from your post… I am trying to go somewhere and we will eventually arrive back to what your post talks about. Just some FYI. 🙂

      • Being omnipotent, being all knowing, and being a first cause is proven illogical as I have already explained and have yet to be refuted. And if my code of morality is to be accepted as logical, which I don’t expect you to, than that also would make God anti-righteous. A non-creator, non-omnipotent, non-all-knowing, and non-righteous God would be no God at all.
        Then also, unrelated to disproving God but another valid point is the idiocy of the concept of faith and the apparently insidious ways of religion.
        And once again not related but a valid point is the lunacy of holy scriptures being full of barbarity, self-contradictions and scientific contradictions.
        AND ONCE MORE there is also the utter failure of Pascals Wager which completely forgets that this is more than just one religion to choose from.
        Endless things keep coming to mind as I am typing!
        I could go on forever…in-fact that’s pretty much what I do!
        I PLEAD WITH YOU, how is it you can follow these things? If you were apart of any other organization that was tied to as much senseless murder, intolerance, oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, forgery, superstition, and blatant hypocrisy would you not resign in protest?!

  4. TwoEdgedSword Says:

    “Being omnipotent, being all knowing, and being a first cause is proven illogical as I have already explained and have yet to be refuted. And if my code of morality is to be accepted as logical, which I don’t expect you to, than that also would make God anti-righteous.”

    Since I am new to your blog, could you redirect me to the postings on these topics so that I could read them?

    “A non-creator, non-omnipotent, non-all-knowing, and non-righteous God would be no God at all.”

    Agreed.

    “Then also, unrelated to disproving God but another valid point is the idiocy of the concept of faith and the apparently insidious ways of religion.
    And once again not related but a valid point is the lunacy of holy scriptures being full of barbarity, self-contradictions and scientific contradictions.”

    I agree with you… to a point. If we want to go deeper here, I would be glad to at your leading. Your blog… out of respect for that I am going to not delve in to lengthy discussions on topics that are off the topic of your post unless you lead the way.

    “Pascals Wager which completely forgets that this is more than just one religion to choose from.”

    I don’t think Pascal was sticking to a specific religion. He even admits that there was not enough evidence to PROVE God, but also didn’t see enough evidence to COMPLETELY disprove God. Personally, I don’t know how much he really believed in God. I think he was more entertaining the idea that there COULD be. And, if there is a God, you are far better to err on the side of for him than against him. As he said… You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

    “If you were apart of any other organization that was tied to as much senseless murder, intolerance, oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, forgery, superstition, and blatant hypocrisy would you not resign in protest?!”

    There are TONS of awful things that are done in the name of religion… no matter what religion it is. There are many things that I disagree with and some that I downright abhor. But, I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I think much of the Bible is a documentary on what was… showing how God worked in certain periods of time; not a commentary on how to live today. Sure there are things that are valid and helpful, but many people take things too far. It’s taken as a literal application for today instead of looking at it for the lessons it teaches. Again, we can go deeper into one or each of the things listed, but I will do so at your leading.

  5. That’s all good. I don’t check my blog everyday anyway.

  6. TwoEdgedSword Says:

    From one of your posts, “The choice to believe whatever is rational is also moral and whatever is irrational is immoral.”

    I can’t buy into that. Sounds good on the surface, but I may think something is rational while you may not. Even if we both agreed something to be rational does not mean it’s moral. If someone killed my family I would probably want to kill that person. And, I would venture to say that it is a rational deduction… eye for an eye. But, that does not mean it’s moral.

    From the omnipotence blog post:
    “>If a God exists he would have to be bound by it.”

    So are you saying that omnipotence would necessitate non-existence?

    You also say that every cause has an effect, and every effect is a cause. If that’s true then there is no beginning and no end. Right? What about eternity? If there was never a beginning and never and ending, then it would fall outside the scope of cause and effect… thus violating the rule.

    Regarding “Your Morality is Blasphemous to Rationality”, I replied on that and will repost it here: If I wanted to do something that made me happy but would make you unhappy, would I (according to what you’ve laid out here) be required to deny myself (which would be what you called an extension of death) or pursue my happiness and bring you displeasure?

    “There are some things that just aren’t right no matter what context you put them in and those things are in the bible.”

    I can think of several things that might fall into this category but wanted to get some specifics from you.

    Until next time…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: