What is the Origin of Everything?

[wuliheron]

Nope, that's just the circuitous route to exactly what I said. That is, that to say nothing is the cause of something is to say nothing is something. In other words, rhetorical nonsense.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
OK then. For your hypothesis that nothing can give rise to something, you are necessrily saying that it is a property of nothing, to cause something.
0 => a
This is a property of nothing, which you are claiming. (Saying that there is a 'chance' that nothing can cause something is meaningless since nothing has no time, has no dimensions, and has no method through which a realisation of chance can occur. It either is, or it isn't.)

In making this claim, you are essentially saying that nothing is an immediate cause of something, and in so doing, you could be said to be redefining nothing, as something.

Nothing = A prime Mover.

LOL, i have just shown that your whole claim is not really what you think it is. You thought it was about something coming from nothing, but if yiou follow the logic through, then u actually end up with a prime mover. LOL.

Can anyone see any faults with my logic? It seems a little weird for me to reach that end...

No, I did not redefine nothing as something, you did. What is a "prime mover"? Can it be seen, felt, smelt, heard, tasted?

Maybe "cause" isn't the right word to describe the process of existence ex-nihilo since we usually associate cause and effect
as a relationship between two "somethings". Rather, existence ex-nihilo- something coming into existence from non-existence- is a process that happens "without cause". It is a break in cause and effect.

It's like if a purple dinosaur (a real one) suddenly appeared in your living room. This is an effect that has no cause. Extend this thought to a time when there was no living room, no energy, no matter- nothing. Here, "Nothing" did not cause the purple dinosaur to exist but rather describes the void that became occupied by the purple dinosaur when before it was not occupied by anything.

Before there was a purple dinosaur, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. Before there was a void, there was a void. A void is the only "thing" where there is no before.

 

[wuliheron]

The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The word you are looking for is "magic" or "supernatural". No cause, but it has an effect.

Yes, magic. Everything came from magic.

 

[wuliheron]

That's a common asian belief as well, and totally compatable with Quantum Mechanics I might add. Do you believe anything other than the origin of existence itself is magical?

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's a common asian belief as well, and totally compatable with Quantum Mechanics I might add. Do you believe anything other than the origin of existence itself is magical?

Well, I think our universe now follows some very strict rules for operation. I find the fact that it does quite magical itself. As far as things popping into and out of existence kind of magic, I think even if this is still happening, it is happening in a different world than ours. Else, I don't see how our universe could remain so stable

 

[Another God]

Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Another God
Everything which you are claiming here, is essentially meaningless. The concept of magic is meaningless even.

Is it any more meaningless than infinite regression of cause and effect? If something always comes from something then the question of origin can never be resolved unless you can count to infinity.

So what better to serve as the time of origin than a true void?

 

[zimbo]

Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Just like to point out that Abbott and Costello are both names of senior Australian government ministers, which makes your post that much funnier from my perspective.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by zimbo
Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Lol, that skit is one of the most well known classic comedy skits of all time. I think my uncle has a copy of it on tape. It has abbott and costello on stage engaged in a dialogue. Stand up comedy i guess. I would imagine you could download the text from various net based site... Or now, you can just cut and paste from Wuliherons post.

(the footage is black and white BTW... so I get the impression its a really really old skit)

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think the relation above does not represent what I am saying.
When you say 0=>0 and 0 => a , you are giving 0 two different
definitions. Of course that would be contradictory. That's like saying an apple is an apple is also an orange. "nothing" is not
"something", I never said it was.

I was speaking in terms of cause and effect. Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause.

I agree with this. It's well-reasoned.

But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself.

Which hat did you pull this from? How can 'nothing' be the cause and future-residence of 'something'? There's no reason in your statement. It makes no sense.

The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

Thus, it follows that this conclusion is also wrong.
It should be noted that things are finite structures (bounded structures) of existence. I.e., things within existence.
Thus, the only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer: Every-thing emanates from an unbounded existence, which is eternal unto itself. A primal-cause.

 

[Eyesee]

Which hat did you pull this from? How can 'nothing' be the cause and future-residence of 'something'? There's no reason in your statement. It makes no sense.

Yes, thanks for helping me make the distinction. With the help of wuli, I found the right word for the original cause of something: magic. Earlier, I had used the word "nothing" to mean both as a void and also as being the cause of "something". What I meant to say was that the beginning of time was a void, then something came to occupy the void without cause- aka by magic. I am merely proposing that we place the void as the beginning of time since nothing comes before a void. What follows of course is that existence came to occupy the void by "magic".

Thus, it follows that this conclusion is also wrong.
It should be noted that things are finite structures (bounded structures) of existence. I.e., things within existence.
Thus, the only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer: Every-thing emanates from an unbounded existence, which is eternal unto itself. A primal-cause. [/B]

Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" One can never count to infinity,
so this position can never be resolved. However, if we placed the beginning at the void, the question of existence is resolved.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
With the help of wuli, I found the right word for the original cause of something: magic. Earlier, I had used the word "nothing" to mean both as a void and also as being the cause of "something". What I meant to say was that the beginning of time was a void, then something came to occupy the void without cause- aka by magic. I am merely proposing that we place the void as the beginning of time since nothing comes before a void. What follows of course is that existence came to occupy the void by "magic".

"A void" is an existent 'entity' if it is not nothing. Hence, it is a part (or whole) of existence itself. What follows is that things came to occupy "the void", after being caused to do so by the void itself.
Like I said, 'things' are bounded-structures within existence.
Hence, 'things' emanate from existence. Not magic.

Nay, as long as there is something, it is possible for one to ask, "where did that come from?" The final answer has to be the void. [/B]

And "the void" itself is eternal. But like I said, the void is not 'nothing'. It may imply the non-existence of a 4-dimensional entity. But it doesn't imply the non-existence of any entity.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
"A void" is an existent 'entity' if it is not nothing. Hence, it is a part (or whole) of existence itself. What follows is that things came to occupy "the void", after being caused to do so by the void itself.
Like I said, 'things' are bounded-structures within existence.
Hence, 'things' emanate from existence. Not magic.

And "the void" itself is eternal. But like I said, the void is not 'nothing'. It may imply the non-existence of a 4-dimensional entity. But it doesn't imply the non-existence of any entity.

Well, that sounds pretty deep. My thinking is probably a little bit more simplistic. I think of the void as truly nothing. Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after. So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense). I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.

My whole thinking was more to find some practical way to define the beginning of time.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eyesee
I think of the void as truly nothing.

But there is no reason to state that it is. The absence of space-time does not = 'nothing'. It just = the absence of space-time... a void of space-time. It is right here where you make you first reasoned mistake; and why your proceeding logic becomes confusing and flawed.

Then, by magic, "things" came into existence and evolved ever after.

Because you have introduced the concept of 'nothing' into your argument (unreasonably), you now feel justified in using the word 'magic'. It just aint so.

So, I guess I am agreeing that existence is eternal

Are you? You implied that existence came from 'nothing'. Therefore you imply that existence has an origin. Therefore you imply that existence has a finite age. And all of this confusion and contradiction has its source in your treatment of 'nothing'.

Reason would insist that something cannot emanate from nothing. Therefore, if something exists now, then reason would state that existence is eternal, and that there never was a state of nothing.
"The void" is definitely some form of existence, and all 'things' emanate from it.

- but only after they came to occupy the void by magic (if that makes any sense).

No it does not. What is 'magic'? I'm not sure what it means in this context. But it has no credibility in a reasoned argument.

I probably like your explanation better and there probably isn't much difference between our thinking.

There's more than you think.

 

[wuliheron]

Just an off-topic question for wuli:

. . . that funny dialogue between Abbott and Costello, where did you get it from? (or should I say, you got it from Who?)

Just like to point out that Abbott and Costello are both names of senior Australian government ministers, which makes your post that much funnier from my perspective.

It's an old comedy routine from the movies. I just did a google search for "who's on first". The entire routine can be had for free online in mp3 files if you like, but I decided not to waste space posting the whole thing. :0)

Well, I think our universe now follows some very strict rules for operation. I find the fact that it does quite magical itself. As far as things popping into and out of existence kind of magic, I think even if this is still happening, it is happening in a different world than ours. Else, I don't see how our universe could remain so stable

Well, Quantum Mechanics insists things called "virtual" particles are appearing and disappearing all the time, but they are so small they cannot be directly detected. Its the extreme nature of the situation that determines whether such magical events are detectable. For example, Stephen Hawking once wrote that a black hole could theoretically emit a color tv or the complete works of Proust in leather bound volumes.

Because their is no cause, there can be no explanation or proof such things are magical. You can't prove what isn't there. All you can do is collect statistical evidence as is the case with Quantum Mechanics. Thus QM asserts that given enough time anything and everything can and will occur.

Is it any more meaningless than infinite regression of cause and effect? If something always comes from something then the question of origin can never be resolved unless you can count to infinity.

So what better to serve as the time of origin than a true void?

Paradox or the ineffable are better. As I said before, there is no way to actually prove something has no cause because you cannot prove a negative. Nor does it make sense to adopt a rigid position in reguard to life, the universe, and everything. It may all be a matter of relative perspective. Often the wisest thing is to simply acknowledge and accept the depths of our ignorance or, at least, our ability to communicate. :0)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Every "something" can be said to have a cause. "Nothing" otoh is not something, therefore, it doesn't need a cause. But not needing a cause doesn't logically exclude it from being the cause of something other than itself. The only way you can stop the question of origin from slipping into an ad infinitum is with the answer : Everything came from nothing. That's the final answer.

I see two problems with your proposal, but before describing them let me be sure I understand you what you mean by nothing. To say “nothing” I assume you mean absolutely no sort of existence. Nothing could mean no “thing” and a thing might be defined as that which has form. If you defined “thing” that way, then some existent essence which is formless might still fit your definition of no-thing. So, my rebuttals to your points assumes you mean by “nothing” the absence of both form and formless existence – that is, "nothing" is absolutely devoid of existence.

My first objection to your hypothesis all existence stems from nothing is a contradiction that is built into your statement. That logical inconsistency is: nothing is not truly an existential void if it contains potential.

Logically, all that exists is preceded by the potential to exist. That is irrefutable. If you want to call potential nothing, then you have to ignore the incredible emissions of potential that we observe in our universe. Out of potential has burst the entire universe, light, forces, matter, life, and consciousness. All that was present in potential before it ever came to exist or it could not possibly exist. I can't see how anyone can refer to such potential as “nothing.” Contemplating what this potential might be like is a segue to my second rebuttal point.

By saying “Every ‘something’ can be said to have a cause,” you’ve assumed a fact about existence which isn’t necessarily true. Why couldn’t there be some most elementary “existential stuff” which was never caused or created, which has always existed, which will always exist and, in fact, which cannot not exist? Possibly this existential stuff is a luminescent vibrancy that some set of circumstances lift from its base condition into the light and vibratory manifestations so ubiquitous in our universe. (The relatively recent points made about zero point energy, for instance, rather than representing “nothing,” could instead represent a state of counterbalanced polar forces, which are themselves expressed potentials of vibrancy.)

It seems to me that the argument of nothing becoming something can only be made through sophistry. How else does one circumvent the illogic and contradictions of the hypothesis, disregard potential and the possibility of some absolute existential stuff, and the especially ignore the observed and substantive presence of existence?

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see two problems with your proposal, but before describing them let me be sure I understand you what you mean by nothing. To say “nothing” I assume you mean absolutely no sort of existence. Nothing could mean no “thing” and a thing might be defined as that which has form. If you defined “thing” that way, then some existent essence which is formless might still fit your definition of no-thing. So, my rebuttals to your points assumes you mean by “nothing” the absence of both form and formless existence – that is, "nothing" is absolutely devoid of existence.

My first objection to your hypothesis all existence stems from nothing is a contradiction that is built into your statement. That logical inconsistency is: nothing is not truly an existential void if it contains potential.

Logically, all that exists is preceded by the potential to exist. That is irrefutable. If you want to call potential nothing, then you have to ignore the incredible emissions of potential that we observe in our universe. Out of potential has burst the entire universe, light, forces, matter, life, and consciousness. All that was present in potential before it ever came to exist or it could not possibly exist. I can't see how anyone can refer to such potential as “nothing.” Contemplating what this potential might be like is a segue to my second rebuttal point.

By saying “Every ‘something’ can be said to have a cause,” you’ve assumed a fact about existence which isn’t necessarily true. Why couldn’t there be some most elementary “existential stuff” which was never caused or created, which has always existed, which will always exist and, in fact, which cannot not exist? Possibly this existential stuff is a luminescent vibrancy that some set of circumstances lift from its base condition into the light and vibratory manifestations so ubiquitous in our universe. (The relatively recent points made about zero point energy, for instance, rather than representing “nothing,” could instead represent a state of counterbalanced polar forces, which are themselves expressed potentials of vibrancy.)

It seems to me that the argument of nothing becoming something can only be made through sophistry. How else does one circumvent the illogic and contradictions of the hypothesis, disregard potential and the possibility of some absolute existential stuff, and the especially ignore the observed and substantive presence of existence?

Ok, these are good points. But as wuli pointed out, you are assuming a logical model of the universe. Magic is a break in this logic. My statement can be rephrased as thus I think: Any logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinite regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect.

 

[Mentat]

If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).

Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what.

?

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational.

So you say, but I couldn't disagree more. One can always find ways to say there isn't anything which is true, real, rational . . . but then nothing has any meaning whatsoever. We've assigned meanings to terms and experiences in order to communicate about them the best we can. If one understands that terms and descriptions only represent reality, and are not themselves actual reality, then it is perfectly fine to discuss things and and expect rationality. For the most part, I believe it is a waste of time to incessantly cast doubt on the relationship between mental images and reality, unless someone in a communication interaction seems utterly blind to that.

Originally posted by wuliheron
YEven your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

I have this friend who is well educated in history, but knows virtually nothing about human psychology. To him, every problem a man has stems from either having a short man syndrome, or being a republican (or both). Similarly, it seems that every problem you find with others' points is that they don't properly understand paradox, and their logic is "circular, self-referential and/or self-contradictory."

If your statement above is a serious statement, I would love to hear you defend that. Exactly how is it "circular" to make the simple observation that all which exists (and I should add "in time and space") must have been preceded by the potential to exist? I mean, where in my statement have I merely repeated my argument, or assumed the conclusion that is to be proven?

How is it self referential? For that I would have to say something like, "all generalizations are false." Where do you see that?

And really Wuli, how is it self-contradictory? Demostrate precisely where/how my logical linking of prior potential to the existence of thing is contradictory. In fact, demostrate how one can possibly get around that principle.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yeah, magic and the supernatural are not rational concepts. So what. Existence is demonstrably irrational because every explanation put forth for it is irrational. Even your idea of "potential" existing before existence is circular logic, self-referential and self-contradictory paradox. At least in calling it magical it goes directly to the point and doesn't obfiscate and pretend to be rational. :0)

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.

I'm not asking you to be optimistic, merely open-minded.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.

This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.

I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

A "true void" exists, I can still ask where it came from. I don't think that Magic is any better an explanation then infinite regression. In fact, I don't think that either suffices, and I'll stick with BB theory.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.

I wouldn't think you would buy that science mumbo jumbo so trustingly. It is just the desparate interpretation of those who know there is still no viable explanation for the origin of the universe's energy. It is merely one way to interpret that zero, and in no way already accepted as true. Besides, it only applies locally; how does it explain that the universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is believed to be increasing? Plus, what about dark energy? That zero could very well represent entirely as yet unrecognized dynamics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
[BAny logical model of the universe leads to infinite regression; the only way out of this infinite regression and thus resolving the question of existence is through a break in cause and effect- by magic. [/B]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff' come from?" So if you stipulate that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or by imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the infinitely regressing cause-effect chain by assuming something irrational- something that had no cause.

I just think "magic" is an even more "basic" explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eyesee
But I can always ask "where does that 'stuff'" come from? So if you impose that this "stuff" has the quality of not being caused, then this itself is a break in cause and effect. So, whether it's by magic or imposing an eternal primal "stuff", you are breaking the
cause-effect chain. I just think "magic" is a more elemental explanation than a "fundamental uncreated, eternally-existing 'stuff'". What comes before nothing? Nothing. So, I choose that as my starting point.

Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.

 

[Eyesee]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, with the uncreated "stuff" you break the cause-effect chain. I thought that was what you were looking for.

Magic has been proven to be a mere illusion. What in reality has ever demonstrated it can get around the rules of reality, and therefore give you hope that actual magic (i.e., not just an illlusion) can really occur?

Finally, again I must fault your concept of nothing because that "nothing" must contain the potential for the universe, life and consciousness since we now exist. It is not "nothing" if it contains so much potential.

Well, if there was no energy, no matter, and no space, wouldn't that be an appropriate definition for "nothing"? Under this definition of nothing, there is "potential" for something to exist, but this "potential" is not matter, energy, or space- so it is something irrational.

I'm not really disagreeing with your idea, merely pointing out that to break the infinite regression, one must break the logic. That is, we must start off with an irrational assumption. Magic or potential- they are both irrational since they do not obey the causal principle.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, you've not explained why we must have infinite regression. What if, as I said before, there is some most fundamental uncreated, eternally-existiing "stuff" of which all things are a form of? Then "things" only regress back to that base state as the lose the temporary form they've taken.

What you are essentially asking here is what if... there were some magical substance... Stuff which has no origin or cause...

In other words, back to the same issue again. I know the idea of "stuff" of some sort seems more reasonable maybe than some sort of magical "energy" or whatever, but bottom line it is not. At least, not by any logic I'm aware of.

Wu Li, when are you going to realize that just because all efforts to describe somthing have failed, it doesn't mean that the thing they are trying to describe is indescribable. That is the most closed-minded stance that it is possible to take. And open-minded person would realize that all it proves - to not have succeeded at describing something - is that you have not succeeded at describing something. And optimist would even go so far as to say that it means we must be closer to the answer, because trial-and-error dictates that the more times you fail, the more likely you are to find the answer.

When are you going to realize that a demonstrably irrational and possibly magical universe does not mean it can be described.

The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.

Sorry, but insisting magic is a resolution to the situation is like insisting dill pickles explain the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it apparently does not make rational sense. It may be then that if it does make rational sense, either it is beyond the human capicity to comprehend or it is ineffable.

That being the case, it may also be that logic is just inappropriate to use in certain contexts such as existence itself. This does not, however, rule out our emotional connection to life, the universe, and everything.