What does paradox reveal about the nature of truth?

If there is no substantial reason for existence to even occur, then why would it actually happen?

I am basically saying that whatever way I exist in the "domino effect" interpretation of what QM says, there is no real significant reason why the "domino" would ever exist in either interpretation, if there was no creationist who was interested in creating "dominoes" even in chance theories...I will explain...

Whether dominoes just exist by random chance, or are created with a special reasoning intended, I am saying I can not see a logical reason as to how a domino can self create itself, rather than choosing not to self create dominoes by itself, by chance, or intended purposes...Which points to either a creator of dominoes, Or some other force capable of somehow choosing to create them or choosing not to create them, by chance, or for intended purposes, even in the random chance theories...And it even points to this force knowing why it is creating dominoes...Or it comprehends it is not meaningful otherwise...

So how could anyone logically argue that created for an intended purpose over chance is not more logical, meaningful, and significant?

I understand that many will say that by chance and from nothing is more special because an intended purpose means someone or thing already had the self notions to create each person, where by chance makes life itself that much more significant, and special...but I disagree with that logic, because if there is a creator of life and he gave life for an intended purpose to someone, then you know you were meant to actually be by a significantly higher, incomprehensible, being's thinking. Not just our own flawed ways...And are not a creation just because of some sort of random creational action by something that does not even comprehend what creation even is, or why it is creating anything at all...And if one is created by chance, and the creator does not even comprehend it is creating anything, Why would someone think that that is meaningful at all? You could have just as easily been passed over and not been created by something that does not even comprehend it is creating anything...there isn't anything meaningful about that...compared to a creationist with intended purposes...

One...I do not think it is necessary to quit bothering at all…and I have never suggest that is the case. I also do not think it can reasonably be inferred from what I have written.

Two...As you get to know me, you will quickly discover that I NEVER quit bothering on any issue. I will pursue any line of discussion...even if just for the enjoyment sake.

Three...as I said, language is used to communicate. When using language…that should be your intention…and while doing so, you can acknowledge that most likely, it will never be adequate to the job of truly describing REALITY. And once you come to that conclusion, you ought really to stop attempting to make "this has to be" or “this cannot be” kinds of statements about REALITY using the language.

We do not know what the REALITY of existence is (I don’t and I strongly suspect you people don’t either)...and the most complicated and arcane use of language that you can come up with (of which there is an abundance coming from you lot)...may not even come as close to the REALITY as an ant's comprehension of the Universe (illusion or not) comes to it.

You, igm, and Fresco, for instance, regularly make pronouncements of what the REALITY has to contain and what is definitely does not contain. Of course, when called on it you guys always explain the caveats and conditionals. But the plain fact is, Matt, that the caveats and conditionals only come from you (universal “you”) when you are cornered.

CHALLENGE to you, igm, Fresco: Lemme hear you guys acknowledge in plain, easy to understand English…that you acknowledge we do not know the REALITY…and that any suggestions you are making about it are nothing more than guesses…and that the fact that we do not know the REALITY is much, much, much, much more integral to the reason the REALITY is not being described here than are the limitations imposed by language’s limits.

Ball in your court.

This stuff is probably better suited to the Religion forum we began our discussions in.

Thanks mate! Cause I read that topic first and thought I made my post in the wrong thread!

No problem.
I copied your last question over to that thread,
and gave a response there also.

Thanks Frank
I think this statement of yours gets at my OP about paradox very well

Is the reason that language and reason are imperfect tools for measuring any reality (even constructed realities like number theory),
that there not only IS no absolute reality, but there cannot even be such things as absolute realities?

I would also like to invite you to consider that maybe I participate in these discussions as part of my training to qualify for working at Starbucks.

We are on different roads here, Matt.

I would like to go on record as saying that it appears to me that an "absolute REALITY" MUST exist. There is, as nearly as I can see...absolutely NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that an "absolute REALITY" does not exist.

In any case, I cannot get to "there cannot be an absolute reality" from your logic above. If you'd care to explain it...I will consider it.

If you want me to explain my position once again (I've done it several times in several different threads)...I will gladly do so.

And I will use language to do so.

I imagine some people have participated in discussions of this sort to qualify for work at Burger King. And economic conditions being what they are...being proficient Rocket Science may one day be a qualifier for work at a Burger King of the future.

I am an ex-bartender. I can tell you that participation in discussions of this sort SHOULD BE a qualifier for that kind of work.

Is was my attempt a philosopher joke.
You know along the lines of a Philosophy degree qualifies you to work at Starbucks.

I realize that.

But I hope you realize my comment wasn't.

We are fast approaching a time when human labor of ANY KIND will have almost no economic value. When that day comes, the world will make the changes needed to take that into consideration. "Earning a living" will become a thing of the past.

The only people who will be allowed to work...will be the most qualified.

Or at least, that is how I see it.

You and many others

If you take the statement "this sentence is false" at face value, keep it simple, and understand English, this is not a language flaw nor a paradox. It simply means "It's true that this sentence is false". Say what you mean with simplicity. Complication is confusion. Einstein said him self that the answer would be simple. I know you might think that was irrelevant, but don't be so sure. Here's a Kiss from me to you. Keep It Simple Stupid.

So is the meaning you give of [It's true that this sentence is false.] a true or a false statement?

I don't think that's irrelevant.
Thanks for your contribution.

Hey Matt, I could not help of thinking about this...In conjunction to the OP. Have you ever studied Taoism? It deals a great deal with paradoxes or paradoxical words...

Lao-Tzu claimed that all words of truth are paradoxical...Do you find this to be true? I think paradoxes could help one understand the nature of truth (to them), if it gets one to examine the positions that are paradoxical...(but that would be their subjective views, to me)

I think a paradox proves that no one could know the nature of truth...

I think it has to do with specific issues rather than generalities. Any one position can be paradoxical, and some people "can" arrive at some truths. We would need to weigh it based on our own perceptions of what is truth.

Do you think there are any such paradoxes that exist that could be said to be universally, objectively, paradoxical by nature, But also true in a way that almost no one would argue is not, both paradoxical, but true?

Or does a position have to be paradoxical in order to come to a perceptive understanding as to why a person thinks that that position is a/the nature of truth while being paradoxical?

That's a good question, but I'm in no position to answer the question, but I can pose a question to add to that confusion.

Wars are usually not necessary - as has been shown by our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, and other wars around the globe. However, it's also true that no matter how "wrong" those wars can be, we "usually" support our troops. Is that a paradox?