Chicken vs Egg - Page 6

God exists because man remembers.
Man is becoz Aliens are.
Chicken is the product of the Egg

I just enjoy cooking and eating both, and for a long time I believed there the egg came first and then the chicken, I feel baffled today because I made no sense. But err, why dun we just eat em or let em live, if we're vegetarians? 🤔

I do not feel that it is a question that is worth answering.

Who cares whether the chicken came first or the egg?

The chicken lays the egg? the egg hatches to become a chick. the chick grows, and hatches an egg or so on?

Since chicken hatches from an egg, we shall assume that the egg is the primary being. But who created the egg? I say that god did.

thank you.

Originally posted by: cyrax

I do not feel that it is a question that is worth answering.

Who cares whether the chicken came first or the egg?

The chicken lays the egg? the egg hatches to become a chick. the chick grows, and hatches an egg or so on?

Since chicken hatches from an egg, we shall assume that the egg is the primary being. But who created the egg? I say that god did.

thank you.

you, sir, are a genius.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

K. I don't know why faith and science cannot go hand in hand in today's world.

I'm reading "Short History of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson. He accounts for basically the history of science, every major discovery how over time scientists discovered geology, physics, chemistry, theorized the atom etc. What is surprising is that a lot of these 'researchers' were pastors, priests, religiously affiliated people. Even some of the people studying evolution were church related. I see no reason why science and faith have to be separate or why science has to reject theology and vice versa.

Well, it's a known problem in the philosophy of science. They call it the demarcation problem. It's not easy to establish a boundary between science and anything that is not science.

"Reality" itself has a boundary problem in the sense it's not feasible to separate the observer and the observation because both are part of the same system. Any boundaries that you come up with are arbitrary in nature. In actuality, the interaction boundaries are not physical. There is no way to tell where one thing ends and another begins unless you are willing to draw a random, agreed upon boundary between them or around them.

Rest of it, later.

Originally posted by: Emptiness

Well that depends what you mean by God?, there are as many definitions of God as there are people. Religion has been around forever, if it could prove God's existence, it would've done so by now, science might stumble upon some sort of "God", if one exists, or it won't, or probably there is no God.

Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. This means that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty! Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense, but it never allows certainty. If you want to know something for certain, then you must attempt the deductive method. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.This some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists!

Originally posted by: night13

Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. This means that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty! Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense, but it never allows certainty. If you want to know something for certain, then you must attempt the deductive method. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.This some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists!

Well you can't really prove the non-existence of something, if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, how do you disprove the existence of unicorns?

We can use logic to disprove the existence of beings and entities which are logically impossible, however, we can't use logic to prove the existence of logically possible beings/entities, for that we need evidence. So when I said that if there is a type of "God" out there, then only science will be able to confirm it with evidence.

Originally posted by: Emptiness

Well you can't really prove the non-existence of something, if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, how do you disprove the existence of unicorns?

From what I understand, if the hypothesis is not proven then it is assumed the null hypothesis is true.

Hypothesis: There are unicorns in the world.
Null Hypothesis: Unicorns do not exist

After surveying seven continents for seven centuries, no unicorns have been found. We are unable to prove there are unicorns in the world, hence the null hypothesis unicorns do not exist must be true.

I think must be is a key operator. It still admits a 0.0000000000000000001% chance that a unicorn might be found somewhere.

Originally posted by: Emptiness

We can use logic to disprove the existence of beings and entities which are logically impossible, however, we can't use logic to prove the existence of logically possible beings/entities, for that we need evidence. So when I said that if there is a type of "God" out there, then only science will be able to confirm it with evidence.

The trickiness with God comes firstly in defining God. We were all able to agree what unicorn was and what we ought to look for, but its been tricky coming to a consensus on what is God and what we ought to test for.

I think I have a set of hypothesis on God that most can probably agree on.
- God exists in the imagination of those who believe in God.
- God does not exist in the imagination of those who do not believe in God.

The universe is perceptual. The reality of each universe depends on the perceptions of reality of each person. The universe I live in conforms to the manifestations of my mind and is different from the universe you live in, because yours conforms to the manifestations of your mind. All these universes coherently coexist.

Originally posted by: osama-bin-joe

you, sir, are a genius.

and Sir that makes you a genius too😆

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The universe is perceptual. The reality of each universe depends on the perceptions of reality of each person. The universe I live in conforms to the manifestations of my mind and is different from the universe you live in, because yours conforms to the manifestations of your mind. All these universes coherently coexist.

If Empti exists in your universe (or in the manifestation of your mind, whichever you prefer), there is no strong reason to think that he has a separate and distinct universe all to his own. You (or your mind) would become the whole and he only a part of the whole.

Even if he comes and says to you that he has a separate universe you shouldn't trust that because one part of your mind which is telling you that he exists in your mind is contradicting another part of the mind that is telling you that he exists outside of your mind.

A whole cannot have parts that have their own wholes distinct from the main whole.

(Now stop giggling at the last sentence and think about it seriously)