"Everything" is not one single thing. I think you mean "the sum of all things."

[MonDie]

Was everything made by something else for its maker's purposes? Was everything not made by something else for its maker's purposes? I don't know if the former is true, but I do know the latter is false. I also know that everything either was or wasn't made by something else for its particular maker's purposes. Let me restate that more clearly.

 

every

(individual) thing

either was or wasn't

made by something else

for its particular maker's purposes.

 

A baby tiger was made by its mother for its mother's purpose. A hammer was made by a human for that human's purpose. Indeed,

each of those things

were

made by something else

for their particular makers' purposes.

 

So when somebody says, "Everything was made by something else for its particular maker's purposes," what are they saying? Just go back to the first bolded text above and replace "either was or wasn't" with "was." This statement isn't a claim of an ultimate maker.

 

The creator of the creator paradox comes in when somebody claims that the sum of all things was made by something else for that maker's purposes.

"The sum of all things" always refers to a specific thing, but what it specifically refers to is dependent on what things there are. For example, when you say the sum of all things was created by something else, you must change your definition of "the sum of all things" to incorporate this "something else." Thus, whatever "something else" originally referred to is now part of the sum of all things, so "something else" is now redefined as well. This constitutes the linguistic-based paradox, which results from the usage of words that can mean different things in different contexts.

 

However, the Big Bang Theory does not make this logical paradox because it clearly states what was made by what. Therefore, logically, it could be true.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die