Thank you for clarifying, I just thought you could mean there was a paradox in some other way.
With regards to your argument I will say this:
Firstly, there must be some loophole in what you've said, because of course the universe does somehow exist (at least it seems reasonable to believe the universe does exist, though some might disagree). I don't think paradoxes (at least of this sort) can actually exist in reality, by their very definition. The task is now to find the loophole.
Well there are some possible answers:
-Many people believe in some sort of un-caused first cause, like a God (I never know when I should use a capital 'G,' but certain members of this site will freak if I don't). This would be a supernatural being, so they wouldn't necessarily be bound by natural laws like cause and effect (which I think seems to be a natural law rather than a logical law).
-Physics around the Big Bang gets really weird, and we simply can't trust our intuition about the nature of cause and effect and time and all those things when it comes to that. For example, I don't think it makes sense to say "before existence." Given the weirdness it makes sense to withhold judgment, even if you're an expert in the subject.
-Closed time loops are another idea, but I think they seem a bit 'ad hoc,' i.e. goofy and just made up to get out of a tight spot.
-I think there are other explanations, but I don't recall them at the moment.
Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.
Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this.
Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.
Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this, though I suspect you won't.
To answer your question, I can't prove anything other than entropy exists because I lack sufficient understanding of physics.
I think maybe the reason that you have to take math in school, even stuff that you don't use in everyday life, is that they don't want people who will do jobs that require math to slip through the cracks. In other words; if you didn't have to do math then lots of people who would become physicists or engineers or whatever would never become those things since they opted out of math at an early age. Sucks for you, I know, but it's better for society as a whole if we don't miss the people with those skills.
All it means is that it could have been possible for life to form on mars, especially in the past, because the right ingredients are there. NOT that there is or ever was life on mars. We don't know if there is or especially if there was because we haven't really looked enough.
But it's not like there are thousands of white Einsteins, and I see you've completely ignored the rest of my last argument explaining why it might be the case that there are other factors than intelligence at play.
Your three truths thing is just a joke.
In no particular order:
1. Star wars, episodes IV & V (Films)
2. Splinter cell, specifically Chaos theory. (Games)
3. Catch 22 (book)
4. Lord of the rings + the Hobbit (Books & Films)
5. Battlefield 3 & 4 (Games)
6. Peep Show (Sitcom)
7. The X-Files (the old TV series (those recent ones mostly sucked))
8. The Terminator (only the original film)
9. The original Mad Max (film)
10. My sex life (fantasy)
It's really your decision, but here's an idea nobody ever mentions:
If you feel guilty about your carnivorous habits leading to animals being killed, but you also don't want to stop eating meat, just eat less meat! You'll still be reducing the amount of meat consumption, and therefore animal slaughtering, just not by as much. It's a good compromise I think.
Why can't we just be nice for the sake of being nice? Suits me just fine. I hope you aren't being nice only because of what you think God says.
I don't believe things can be objectively morally right or wrong.
A question for you: are things (a) right/wrong just because God says they are, or are they (b) right/wrong because of some objective morality that doesn't come from God? If (a), then your morality seems arbitrary. If (b), God isn't required for your morality to exist.
