So many profound truths reside in supposed paradoxes.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
This would only be a true paradox if neither was true. But as the universe (and chickenhood) had a beginning, this question has an answer. God created the chicken ex nihilo, although whether with the birds of the sky on day five or the beasts of the field on day six I'm not sure. This draws the line between us and evolutionists (assuming they admit the existence of chickenhood as distinct from the universe), who would have to say that the mother's egg first contained the mutation that created chickens.

Is the glass half empty or half full?
Obviously, it depends on whether it is currently in the process of being emptied or filled! But if you have to ask the question, it would be worth betting it was half empty,  as that is the usual state of glasses left lying around—if they're not being drunk, they're evaporating. The same is true with the world. The world is always either being emptied or filled. But its filling is a rare and magical occurrence. Entropy is universal.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
This paradox questions the validity of definitions themselves. Sounds in the strict sense are auditory perceptions, existing in the brain of the auditor. Sound waves, on the other hand, are present anywhere there is matter and movement, whether they can be perceived or not. As long as you keep a consistent definition, you can argue either way. But if you deny the possibility of answering without test data, you are denying the existence of any meaning, not just that of the word 'sound'. For all the important things in life cannot be proved experimentally.

Hike Upstate