Ok, so my sibling and I were debating on the exact nature of the paradox I'm about to describe to you, and I want you to twist your brains around and get the whole gist of the situation.
What if you went back in time and had a child with your mother, and that child turned out to be you.
Right, so we've narrowed down a few things that would have a billion to one chance of actually happening that this condition requires.
* There is no 'first time'. It was asked who the 'original' father was, but the nature of time travel allows it to be an infinite loop that needs no beginning nor end.
* The child (you) must have obtained every gene from his father (you) in order to be you.
* There is no possibility for error. Kunas pointed out that what if, during one of the loops, some of the genetic mumbo jumbo got mixed up. The problem with this argument is what I'm about to describe as the 'kill your own grandfather' paradox.
You cannot go back in time to change something that happened. If you go back to kill your father (before you were born), then you would not have been born. If you were not born, you couldn't possibly have gone back to kill him, so you *would* have been born.
Are you still with me? Good. The entire path had *already happened*, and therefore could not possibly go any differently. If there was an attempt to change it, this paradox would kick in and cancel out its possibility.
So what's the big deal with this paradox? You go back in time to have a child with your mother (no jokes on that please) and that child turns out to be you. There was no 'first' father, because you'd gone back and it was you. You did not change anything, because it had already happened.
I plan to use this argument if anyone ever suggests the possibility going back in time to me.
What do you think? And by the way, have any of you read Oedipus Rex? I'm got some things to say on that, I tell you.