"This sentence is false"

^^ Most popular version.

Now, there are, apparently, basics which cannot be proven within (note; within that particular framework, it could perhaps be proven from another framework) any sort of logical framework. These are basic assumptions which one just has to accept as a 'truth', but they still remain unverifiable or illogical. This is called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems]incompleteness[/url] mathematically. Now, that is waaaaay beyond me, but perhaps my point is somewhat related.

Eg, supposing I say everything must evolve and change with time, that ignores the fact that the rule "everything must evolve" does not evolve. Note, this is a trollish example, as 'everything' here means physical, not absolute mathematical truths or ideas, but this example should do. You accept the rule "everything must evolve" despite the fact that that is contradictory.

I'll think up better examples, but for folk who state there's no way something can from nothing in this universe, you could be neglecting the full story. Simply, that something cannot come from nothing in this universe except.....the universe itself.

A simple take this is