The Chicken And The Egg

[ProKeymaster]

The Chicken And The Egg

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

I know what you mean mate, I’ve been puzzling over these matters my whole life I suppose as I was exposed to God such a great deal from a very early age. I always saw Him as a spiritual thing I think but I was also told of the trinity, the father, the son and the holy spirit (or holy ghost).

Surprisingly this trinity shows three levels of existence just like Pro theory does. The father is God, the creator and all powerful being or whatever He is. The son is obviously Jesus, the physical representation of God on earth.

And the holy spirit is the spirit of everything that we encounter, our feelings and instincts, and our minds. So here we have the non-physical (God), the physical or opposite to non-physical (Jesus) and the glue between them that is the power of the holy spirit.

The holy spirit is neutral in my mind as it’s both a part of the non-physical and also the physical, it exists within both.The Bible is a very interesting book but as with all great historical books a modern interpretation must be sought. I suppose that actually there is no bible, it’s never been a single book, but a collection of many different books on a similar theme.

Genesis, the gospels, old and new testament etc. They are all towards the same theme but all from different sources and times. We also have to look at the evidence and most importantly reliability of evidence for what is said in the bible. I think that evolution did happen and is happening still but I don’t think it happens in isolation, meaning that I don’t think it fully explains intelligent life such as humans.

The most simple cell can develop from a chemical reaction, getting its energy for ‘growth’ through sunlight and heat etc. Over time perhaps this cell structure evolved gradually and grew into more complex structures, in much the same way that crystals can grow into ever more complicated structures with no intervention from mankind.As for life being intelligently created by something I’m not sure what to say really.

As I’ve explained before I think that life as we know it was created by a combination of things, perhaps intelligence and perhaps chance creating the first lifeforms on this planet.

The structure does seem extremely well designed doesn’t it mate, but I think that nature is beautiful as it’s not touched by mankind at all. Nature and the natural order of things are well designed because they each exist to do what they do naturally, somehow I just think that the three potentials of my theory flow and smooth out the complications and create life somehow.

I don’t know, it’s too difficult for me to write it in words, I’d end up writing my reply to this thread for ten years or something lol.I think what you said about looking at things ourselves and not just automatically assuming the bible is right is a good approach.

If God created us and the universe then surely He must have intended us to use our minds to think about things :yes:And the chicken and the egg problem is usually used in philosophy studies to find out how well a student can argue each side of the case (chicken or egg).

It seems very strange to me now that I recall it but at school we were always taught that there was no wrong or right answer for top marks in exams. They said it was about how well you presented the evidence.It still works the same today doesn’t it, this question I mean.

On my YouTube video about this problem the viewers keep trying to debate using evidence which came first, always looking for a single unbreakable answer that they will never find.This is why this essay has always been at the top of my list on my website and my forum.

It really is the best and most accessible question to get people talking about Pro theory :nod:I don’t think we’re too far off topic either, if we were talking face to face in RL we’d naturally talk in a varied way about related subjects such as God and the bible as it’s all on the general theme of what life is and how or when it was created 🙂

D. Vos – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

I guess this is a question that keeps us all busy mate. 🙂 You’re taking the Chicken for an example but I think its also a question about where did life start, because there has got to be one thing before the other.The Chicken cannot exist before the egg and the egg cannot exist before the chicken.

What happened then? Because still they are there, while they shouldn’t be.also a Tree cannot exist before its seed and a seed cannot exist before its tree. And people cannot exist without their parents being there before.

Nothing can come from nothing but, though impossible, still we are alive.I think the third option makes sense in a way:

3. The chicken and the egg both came first (neutral).

Seeing chicken and eggs not separately, but both the egg and the full grown chicken as a part of the chicken-system. But then is the question. ….. How did they develop ?then there are also three possibilities I guess.

1. the Chicken system has been evolved.

2. The Chicken system has been created.

3. The Evolution and Creation option might both be correct answers, both words try to describe the development of the Chicken-system and the rest of life on this planet. (neutral) Just some thoughts about it mate 😉

Pro’ – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

It’s a difficult one isn’t it mate 😉 I usually see this problem as simply a paradox without looking at it as the origin of life. I actually pretty much agree that life must have started somewhere along the line but I’m not sure still.

On my YouTube channel at the moment my Chicken and Egg video has an ongoing discussion with people debating genetically which must have come first to create life. This is interesting to me but as I say I still tend to think of this as just a paradox without one answer being able to be proven as more accurate than the other.

I have my own theories on how and why life started on this planet from books I’ve read about things but I’m still not sure what to think really in the end.

I use this paradox to show how Pro theory works as it’s the most famous example of contradiction in the universe and it’s also the most argued one in many universities as they often say at school that there is no wrong or right answer, it depends on how well you argue your point.

Thanks for sharing your views on the subject mate 🙂

D. Vos – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Thanks for the video Simon. :thumbup: yeah its a difficult question.I see what you mean mate, and I agree there is no wrong or right to this question because all of the three answers you give have the potential to be right or wrong, as all the possibilities are open.

I guess no-one can tell for sure which came first.I understand you see the problem simply as a paradox, but I always have the habit to take everything quite literally and when your asking what came first… I was thinking about the very first one, which brings me back at the point of the origin of life – the origin of Chicken anyway.

I see chicken and egg not as two separate things, but as “one thing” – one species.. that somehow developed a system for reproduction. I can assume Chicken-like creatures were around to develop that system during millions of years but I could never prove that.

Or I could believe that a God created a full grown chicken in just a few seconds, but that cannot be proved either.So all possibilities stay open. I don’t think the way we feel or think or believe, or the way we are capable to argue our points could possibly change the given reality around us.

We can have a view to things, an opinion or even a belief. But it doesn’t influence the way things are. even if we can argue very well it doesn’t proves us to be right or wrong.There always can be some facts we simply don’t know of, which we cant include in our argument.

I was brainstorming about this a couple of hours now mate, I guess this IS a difficult matter indeed.but I think chickens and eggs are very tasty anyway. :nod:See you mate :wave2:

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Very good points all there D 🙂 I’ve long thought about the genetic version of this question too but I’ve never really written much about it as I’m always focused on the paradox side of things. It’s interesting in itself to think about the genetic or origin of life answer to this problem and it ties in with some other things I’ve been thinking a lot about lately too.

I’ve been thinking about what the meaning of life is. You know how films sometimes have a character or theme on the meaning of life? Invariably the conclusion they draw is that it’s up to your own interpretation or reality if you like. Life has meaning according to what means something to you.

There is not usually a generic meaning of life that applies equally to all humans is there. When people ask about the meaning of life, why are we here, and similar things they often mean why are we conscious I think. What I mean here is that all humans are conscious and aware of their realities and their surroundings but there is no other race or species on planet Earth that we know of that is able to be as aware as we are.

This seems to be the root of all mystery and religion in my view. I’m not saying religion comes directly from this I just mean that religion helps us to explain our consciousness sometimes. It’s difficult for me to put into words mate but I’m trying to say that we tend to look to a higher being sometimes when we think deeply of the universe and our place within it.

I think that in terms of the genetic origin of life we have to look first at L.U.C.A which means Last Universal Common Ancestor and refers to the last organism of life cell that all life on earth was related to. I suspect that there was a life form that divided itself over and over to multiply and over time it developed a way of splitting itself into body (chicken) and new division of itself (egg).

This seems like the most logical explanation to me.Originally the life form in the form of maybe a single cell would have created an exact copy of itself as it split, like how an egg can split to form identical twins. Over time, perhaps millions of years, perhaps longer, this process created life as we know it and created all life with a way of duplicating itself using body and egg.

I’ve often heard it said that an egg is a genetic copy of its parent, with variation sometimes, and the egg or seed of a tree for example is coded to grow as the same species or whatever as its parent.

I think that perhaps originally the bacteria or cells or whatever would have divided by themselves but that over time the process became split between two parents.

Simply put there are three possible outcomes for the evolution of bacteria here.

1. Bacteria/life/cells divide themselves as they currently do in the human body for example. This process happens within a single unit not requiring another to reproduce.

2. Bacteria/life/cells form into two separate bodies or forms, male and female, and can only reproduce by interaction, the two are opposites.

3. Neutral. Sorry I’m confusing things here mate, I’ve been thinking too much about too much stuff and I think I’m on overload or something :thumbup:

D. Vos – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Pro;454]Very good points all there D :)[/quote] Thanks Simon :thumbup:

I noticed by what you share in the other thread, The Tao Te Ching thread, you’ve been thinking about these matters quite a lot lately Simon. I also tend to look at a higher being when I think about the origin and the meaning of life, as we are just small people here on earth and our knowledge is limited.

Science tells us there was a “big bang” at the start of the universe, I guess that term stands for “a very huge amount of energy”, that created the universe and made life develop personally I don’t see how from a “big bang”, an explosion,would come anything good.

Explosions are mostly uncontrolled, and devastating.I believe the huge Energy that developed us and everything, was a controlled, intelligent and Creating

Force.I think the evolution theory and Creationist views go well together because both views try to explain the development of everything, they both hold parts of the truth, which is the reality surrounding us and the fact we are.

I think there’s a lot of similarities in the Tao Te Ching and in the bible, Genesis, I think both books hold poetic stories, Giving praise to the higher being: the “Energy” that brought us life. :meditate:Just like the ancient Egyptians who worshipped the Sun as their God, I think they were absolutely right, because there wont be any life on earth without it I guess..

It remains difficult stuff mate.

I guess when the chicken evolved from a single cell to a body no one can tell if that cell should be called an egg or a chicken. I suppose when the egg was at first it would contain a chicken within already. It would also need another chicken to keep it warm, otherwise it would be the first and the last one.

If the chicken was there at first it would already hold a row of eggs inside. but a rooster would also be necessary. One form of a species cant do without the other forms I guess, its a system. Life remains a mystery… where did the first building stone bacteria come from?

How do specific bacteria develop into birds? and other bacteria into humans, during millions of years. Its a miracle already that ONE species would develop out of bacterial soup, still the planet is filled with thousands of species. to me a one-cell bacteria is not less a miracle than a million-celled elephant, not the number of cells is what I call the biggest miracle but the fact it’s alive

[quote=Pro;454]Sorry I’m confusing things here mate, I’ve been thinking too much about too much stuff and I think I’m on overload or something :thumbup:[/quote]

Never mind mate, I like to think things over too, though it’s a bit later now than i intended, I guess I’m also a bit on overload now :roflmao: see you mate :wave:

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Hi mate, sorry it’s taken me a while to reply to you but I’ve been thinking a lot. I’m not really sure what I think about God and everything to do with Him really. As you know I’ve been raised as a Christian but I choose to follow the Tao instead as the view of my parents’ God doesn’t quite fit with me as an adult.

My dad was a preacher and my mother teaches Christianity (Alpha course) and my uncle runs a church as a preacher as well. I like the Tao so much as it doesn’t rely on a God but rather on the Universe instead in a way which doesn’t remind me of God and my early experiences.

I think that I’m not really sure what God is or could be and so maybe this is why I’m reluctant to discuss Him perhaps 🙂 When I first began to write about Pro theory the very first thing I ever wrote was an essay on God actually as I wanted to try to explain it for myself at the time. Having said this I do have my own ideas about Gods but in the physical sense.

This was always the problem for me, I never could work out why God seemed so strange to me as I couldn’t work out if He was a physical thing or a spiritual thing or what. And you’re right, there are a lot of similarities between Genesis and the Tao Te Ching mate, I have read about most of the religions in the world and they all seem to share a common root, namely the presence of something higher than us humans.

Tribes in the Amazon rainforest, Protestants and Catholics, even down to the American Indians, they all seem to believe in a higher creator force somehow which I find very telling actually. I have read some very complicated books about this subject and it comes down to consciousness basically.

I can’t explain adequately at the moment but it’s the fact that we’re so conscious that is the key to a creator or intelligent life force creating us or perhaps modifying us in some way. For what it’s worth I personally believe that evolution happened but only to a certain extent.

What I mean is that some species have definitely evolved as Darwin suggested but other species seem to have jumped or leapt in a massive way from monkeys or apes to humans with computers etc which apes obviously don’t have at this time.

I think the key lies in the fact that apes currently are still evolving but they are nowhere near our human capacities as evolution takes such a long time unless it’s helped along in some way by an intelligent being of some sort.

I’ve purposely avoided talking of this before as it implies a conspiracy or crazy God theory in parts but it’s not as far fetched as it seems. Genetics are moving on at a fast rate and when God takes Adam’s rib to make Eve would it not be so far fetched that he was taking Adam’s DNA to form her?

This isn’t by far the whole story but it’s an important part of it I think. This is difficult for me to write properly but I’m basically suggesting that life perhaps existed first because bacteria etc is a chemical reaction at its most basic form. Each of our body cells are mini chemical processes, using oxygen and sunlight etc to keep us alive.

I think that maybe God, an astronaut or something, found ‘life’ and modified it into humans by expanding the genetic makeup of the apes perhaps and expanding our brains to give us more capacity for thought. This is an extremely simplified view of my thoughts but it’s what I think.

If God created a physical being (humans/life/etc etc) then in some way He must have a way to be physical too mustn’t He? I’ve read a lot of stories of early 20th Century explorers in remote places and jungles visiting tribes and the tribes worshipped the people as Gods.

They lived as nomads in the jungle and when they saw record players and guns etc they automatically thought the people were Gods when in reality they were just Western people from England or America or wherever. I could go on forever about this stuff but I won’t as I’m still not sure how to express what I’m trying to explain here.

I’m not saying God doesn’t exist, nor am I saying that God didn’t create the Universe, I’m just saying what I personally think happened a long long long time ago on earth. Like when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, apparently on these sites they have found blackened stones from a nuclear explosion for example.

Have you heard that Lot and his wife left a city and God warned them not to look back or they would instantly die? Lot’s wife looked or went back and was “turned into a pillar of salt” which to me says she was vaporised by a nuclear force.

My main problem is that I don’t believe all of what the Bible tells us, although I do believe parts of it to be true. I’ve also heard it said that when Noah built his arc for the animals it wasn’t necessarily God causing the flood it was God having prior knowledge of the flood but being powerless to stop it and so He warned Noah that it was coming.

I hold back a lot on my real knowledge of these things as I’m not good enough to explain them without it seeming like I’m trying to put down religion which isn’t the case as it’s singular. As you know mate Pro theory is three things, never a single one such as God does or does not exist, God modified our DNA singularly etc.

My own ultimate view is partly that ‘God’ modified life that already existed and yes, He or they were and are intelligent but I also think that ‘life’ is created and cycled or perhaps recycled but the universe rather than a physical God.

I believe in a mixture of atoms, Gods (Elohim), the Tao (path or way), the middle road, genetics, spirituality, higher thought, ley lines and energies that are as yet undetectable and a million other things, including last but not least Pro theory :thumbup:

I’ll try to explain further when I’m able to do so, I’m in a difficult stage at the moment where I can’t write like I used to be able to so it’s clear but at least I’m doing my best which is very important to me 🙂 :peace:

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Basically I think God and ‘the universe’ have been combined into one over the years by humans in some way. God “created Man in His own image” which roughly implies that He copied us as Himself. Perhaps we’re all Gods, who knows? :confused2: :headscratch2: Follow the Tao, the universe is created and nobody owns it, life exists without words, the universe lives forever because it doesn’t live for itself, where it came from I do not know, without even opening my window I can know the whole world…:meditate:

D. Vos -‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’ Hi Simon you’ve explained a lot mate, thanks, and I think I do feel about it the same in many ways. I can’t really say what or who God is either, but I believe there’s a driving force in the universe that made all things come forth.

Maybe God even is the universe, as He is everywhere and he is life itself as He is All in All. Just like the universe He is endless, has no beginning and no End.I find it hard to believe, understand or like, certain parts of the Bible though.

I like to believe in positivity and that there is a Positive power and a negative power and that the positive is the strongest and will win in the end. But maybe its just what I want, what everybody in every story wants: that the good guys win.

In Pro Theory I like the idea that next to a positive and a negative there is always a neutral possibility too.That makes sense to me, because I think there’s is a neutral most of the time and the neutral is often the closest to the truth, the reality.

Neutrality is often the most fair answer to questions I suppose, I do believe in “Evolution”.. sort of… because I believe life did develop and changed a lot after being created in it’s basic form. But life is of such complicated design that I think there must have been some intelligent Force behind it all, and still is.

I don’t think we have to believe per se all what the bible (or any other learning) tells us. I think its not good to just believe things “Just because the bible says” and giving things no further thought.

I think we all have the right to form our own opinion and to agree or disagree.I think that comes naturally because we simply cant believe what we don’t subscribe.

A dictated faith can never be our own I guess, dogmas can even drive people to madness and make people think bad about other people who don’t believe or do the same.Its best to think things over by ourselves, we have the right to.

I understand you choose to follow the Tao instead when you feel uncomfortable with the things you’ve always been taught and you might feel you were to young to understand these things when you learned them and had no fair choice to think them over?

That’s how I feel about it sometimes.. I learned about Christianity even before I could read or write…Just some thoughts about it mate, giving it a try as my mind is puzzled about these matters…’

D. Vos – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Pro;526]Basically I think God and ‘the universe’ have been combined into one over the years by humans in some way. God “created Man in His own image” which roughly implies that He copied us as Himself.

Perhaps we’re all Gods, who knows?:confused2: :headscratch2:[/quote] I (used to) believe everything alive is powered by an universal “God” who is All in All [quote=Pro;526]Follow the Tao, the universe is created and nobody owns it, life exists without words, the universe lives forever because it doesn’t live for itself, where it came from I do not know, without even opening my window I can know the whole world…:meditate:[/quote]

Its funny that though there are similarities between the Tao and Genesis the difference is that The Tao learns that “life exists without words” and Genesis learns that the word was with God and the word was God.. and that things were when God actually spoke

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=D. Vos;547]I (used to) believe everything alive is powered by an universal “God” who is All in All Its funny that though there are similarities between the Tao and Genesis the difference is that The Tao learns that “life exists without words” and Genesis learns that the word was with God and the word was God.. and that things were when God actually spoke[/quote]

Yes this similarity is very interesting indeed mate.

It’s a fact that many if not most religions seem to share common themes like this, when you look further into it some surprising things appear.

A lot of religions believe in holy relics, body parts of heroes or holy men or saints. A lot of flood myths are in a lot of different religions, as are reptiles and dragons/snakes.

There are numerous different versions of creator Gods, ancient civilisations created and destroyed by God or Gods sometimes as the old word “Yaweh” means plural I think it is.

There’s even Lao Tzu (reputed author of the Tao Te Ching) riding on a bull Then there’s Jesus riding on a donkey. Both pictures are thought to symbolise that both men have overcome all of their animal passions basically.

They have achieved a mastery of their desires, anger, lust, greed etc and they are in control of themselves. After all, it’s only really our minds that distinguish us from animals as we alone are able to think deeply about how our actions will affect others and how we can control them through a stable society.

Just a few thoughts for you mate :thumbup: :meditate:

D. Vos – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Pro;550]I know what you mean mate, I’ve been puzzling over these matters my whole life I suppose as I was exposed to God such a great deal from a very early age. I always saw Him as a spiritual thing I think but I was also told of the trinity, the father, the son and the holy spirit (or holy ghost).

Surprisingly this trinity shows three levels of existence just like Pro theory does.The father is God, the creator and all powerful being or whatever He is.

The son is obviously Jesus, the physical representation of God on earth. And the holy spirit is the spirit of everything that we encounter, our feelings and instincts, and our minds. So here we have the non-physical (God), the physical or opposite to non-physical (Jesus) and the glue between them that is the power of the holy spirit.

The holy spirit is neutral in my mind as it’s both a part of the non-physical and also the physical, it exists within both.[/quote]

I think God is All in All which means He actually is present in everything alive, it means God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One, but also that everything comes forth from His Spirit, the universal Energy.

The Word Spirit describes to me the presence of Life/Energy/Electricity/Power in every Creature. We all have a spirit within us, if its gone were dead, its the energy that powers us. Just like a radio that needs Energy/Electricity to play and if you plug it out its dead.[quote=Pro;550]

The Bible is a very interesting book but as with all great historical books a modern interpretation must be sought. I suppose that actually there is no bible, it’s never been a single book, but a collection of many different books on a similar theme. Genesis, the gospels, old and new testament etc.

They are all towards the same theme but all from different sources and times. We also have to look at the evidence and most importantly reliability of evidence for what is said in the bible.[/quote] That’s true, the Bible consists of many different writings, and also a lot of writings have been left out.

And I think there are also other ancient books that contain a lot of wisdom. We are all free in our interpretation but certain things are very clear in the Bible: That we should reach out for the good, the positive and spread Love. :nod:

[quote=Pro;550]I think that evolution did happen and is happening still but I don’t think it happens in isolation, meaning that I don’t think it fully explains intelligent life such as humans. The most simple cell can develop from a chemical reaction, getting its energy for ‘growth’ through sunlight and heat etc.

Over time perhaps this cell structure evolved gradually and grew into more complex structures, in much the same way that crystals can grow into ever more complicated structures with no intervention from mankind.

As for life being intelligently created by something I’m not sure what to say really.

As I’ve explained before I think that life as we know it was created by a combination of things, perhaps intelligence and perhaps chance creating the first lifeforms on this planet.

The structure does seem extremely well designed doesn’t it mate, but I think that nature is beautiful as it’s not touched by mankind at all.

Nature and the natural order of things are well designed because they each exist to do what they do naturally, somehow I just think that the three potentials of my theory flow and smooth out the complications and create life somehow. I don’t know, it’s too difficult for me to write it in words, I’d end up writing my reply to this thread for ten years or something lol.[/quote]

I think Creation or Evolution are just words we use to describe “development”, but in fact its the same event. I think Evolution just describes the development everything alive, but to me its not a full explanation of why Life started and it does not tell about the Source that made Evolution happen, behind the scenes.

I believe even if a new being was created by God today, we would just see the development and might call it “evolution”. It cant be explained what Life exactly is, but I think of it as a stunning metamorphosis.

[quote=Pro;550]I think what you said about looking at things ourselves and not just automatically assuming the bible is right is a good approach. If God created us and the universe then surely He must have intended us to use our minds to think about things :yes: [/quote]

Yes mate, We are all free in what we believe, or not, and to think things over by ourselves. :nod: Faith can never be dictated or forced. We must not be influenced by any fear that we might end up in hell or something if we don’t believe it “Right”.

That’s not good in my opinion. We are free in our minds. :yes:There are things in the Bible I don’t understand really, and there are bad things happening in this world that make me wonder if He is there sometimes.:headscratch2:[quote=Pro;550]And the chicken and the egg problem is usually used in philosophy studies to find out how well a student can argue each side of the case (chicken or egg).

It seems very strange to me now that I recall it but at school we were always taught that there was no wrong or right answer for top marks in exams. They said it was about how well you presented the evidence.It still works the same today doesn’t it, this question I mean.

On my YouTube video about this problem the viewers keep trying to debate using evidence which came first, always looking for a single unbreakable answer that they will never find. This is why this essay has always been at the top of my list on my website and my forum.

It really is the best and most accessible question to get people talking about Pro theory :nod:I don’t think we’re too far off topic either, if we were talking face to face in RL we’d naturally talk in a varied way about related subjects such as God and the bible as it’s all on the general theme of what life is and how or when it was created :)[/quote]

I see what you mean mate in studies its important to learn to argue your points, and the chicken and the egg paradox is an excellent question to have a debate.Sorry it took me so long to think about these matters mate, I might have said some things before in earlier posts and I think I’m thinking kinda “religious” about these things :COLeek:, but I respect everyone’s opinion.:nod: See you mate :wave:

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=D. Vos;562]I think God is All in All which means He actually is present in everything alive, it means God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One, but also that everything comes forth from His Spirit, the universal Energy.

The Word Spirit describes to me the presence of Life/Energy/Electricity/Power in every Creature. We all have a spirit within us, if its gone were dead, its the energy that powers us.

Just like a radio that needs Energy/Electricity to play and if you plug it out its dead.[/quote]I see what you mean mate, my mother thinks and talks this way about God too. That Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are in us all, in every living thing. This is also how I was taught as a child and I still retain a similar belief but using different words for it.

I now talk of energies and electricity but I honestly don’t see my own views as different from religion’s views. The only real difference is the words, I still feel the same things and wonder about the same things such as the chicken and the egg lol.[quote]

That’s true, the Bible consists of many different writings, and also a lot of writings have been left out. And I think there are also other ancient books that contain a lot of wisdom. We are all free in our interpretation but certain things are very clear in the Bible: That we should reach out for the good, the positive and spread Love. :nod:[/quote] Yes, this fact of books being left out of the Bible is something that I’m very interested in myself.

And I agree, there are many ancient books that contain a lot of wisdom. Such as the Tao Te Ching :yes: and the Gnostic writings (Gnostics were an early Christian group) and also the other ‘Gospels’ from other disciples of Jesus etc. It’s all in all a good philosophy, love thy neighbour/friend, but it’s been caught up in politics I think, people in power have chosen to include or exclude books in what we modern people call ‘The Bible.’

I think that it’s almost seen as going against God to ask if these other books are important or should have been included, but it’s natural to want to look at every source for a fair understanding of all the facts and ideas.

Whatever I may think about God myself I somehow doubt that He said “right, discard that Gospel, put Matthew in there, oh, and don’t forget Luke too…” What I mean is that it’s very likely that people included what they thought was best and the other teachings became lost and alienated.

Such as Gnostic wisdom, which is now seen as heretical.[quote]I think Creation or Evolution are just words we use to describe “development”, but in fact its the same event. I think Evolution just describes the development everything alive, but to me its not a full explanation of why Life started and it does not tell about the Source that made Evolution happen, behind the scenes.

I believe even if a new being was created by God today, we would just see the development and might call it “evolution”. It cant be explained what Life exactly is, but I think of it as a miracle[/quote]

Whoah mate, those pictures are good! I’ve never seen that before. That’s a perfect example of the egg becoming the chicken, as parts of a single thing. That’s an interesting point about evolution mate, and I can see what you mean actually. If a new being were created by God we’d have a news bulletin saying that a new species has been discovered wouldn’t we.

We might not necessarily attribute it to God’s work.[quote]Yes mate, We are all free in what we believe, or not, and to think things over by ourselves. :nod: Faith can never be dictated or forced. We must not be influenced by any fear that we might end up in hell or something if we don’t believe it “Right”.

That’s not good in my opinion. We are free in our minds. :yes: There are things in the Bible I don’t understand really, and there are bad things happening in this world that make me wonder if He is there sometimes.:headscratch2:[/quote]

Yes, I know what you mean here, we should all be free to think what we like as long as we’re not hurting anyone I think. I’ve often wondered about what you said there in the past. About going to hell if you don’t believe etc, this troubled me greatly when I was younger.

I always wondered what might happen to a good and kind person who had no experience of God or religion through being isolated, perhaps on a small island or something.It always seemed unfair to suggest that anybody who didn’t believe, whether they had the chance to believe or not, would go to hell.

And I agree, there are many many terrible things happening every day in the world and it does make you wonder doesn’t it 🙁 The way I look at this, even though I’m not a ‘believer’ in the strictest sense, is that when God expelled us from the Garden of Eden He said that we were on our own didn’t He?

It’s been a long time since I read about this but I seem to remember that because Adam and Eve were thrown out they and their descendants would no longer be free of pain as in the garden. This is how I see it anyway, God never seems to have promised 100% peace on earth until Jesus returns I don’t think, sad as it is.[quote]

I see what you mean mate in studies its important to learn to argue your points, and the chicken and the egg paradox is an excellent question to have a debate.

Sorry it took me so long to think about these matters mate, I might have said some things before in earlier posts and I think I’m thinking kinda “religious” about these things :COLeek:, but I respect everyone’s opinion.:nod: See you mate :wave:[/quote]

It is a good question isn’t it, just look at how this debate has developed already 🙂

It’s fine by me to be religious as I myself in turn respect everyone’s opinion too. This kind of debate in a friendly and positive way is the main reason for this forum’s existence :meditate:See you mate :thumbup:

pictoquarks – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

The answer to this question is really simple: the egg was first, there were other animals laying eggs before the chicken existed.

If the question would be: what was first, the chicken or the chicken-egg? Then the answer is: the chicken, because only a chicken can lay a chicken-egg.

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=pictoquarks;582]The answer to this question is really simple: the egg was first, there were other animals laying eggs before the chicken existed. If the question would be: what was first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?

Then the answer is: the chicken, because only a chicken can lay a chicken-egg.[/quote]

That’s the most concise answer I’ve yet heard to this question. Welcome to the forum 🙂

pandamonk – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

I’m sorry if this has already been said. Evolution can easily answer the question. The egg came first.

An, “almost” chicken(a bird that is just outside the definition of chicken) must’ve laid an egg which would become a “just” chicken(a bird that is just inside the definition of chicken).

It would have been such a small, unnoticeable change, but it must’ve happened at one point. We could never find the point, but there must’ve been one.

pandamonk – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=pictoquarks;582]The answer to this question is really simple: the egg was first, there were other animals laying eggs before the chicken existed.

If the question would be: what was first, the chicken or the chicken-egg? Then the answer is: the chicken, because only a chicken can lay a chicken-egg.[/quote]

Ahh this is a good point, but I disagree that the chicken would be first for the chicken-egg. It depends on the definition of “chicken-egg”.

Is it an egg from a chicken or an egg that produces a chicken? You are correct if it is the first. I am correct for the second. If it’s simply an egg, then it certainly is the egg. By far!

Tina – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Pro;124]. Three answers accounts for the three simultaneous potentials within everything. [U]Answers[/U]

1. The chicken came first.

2. The egg came first.

3. The chicken and the egg both came first (neutral). Simultaneously.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

Pro – I really don’t accept: 3) “The Chicken and the egg both came first”as the definitive Protheory answer.The question seeks an answer that acknowledges the indeterminate nature of the question, therefore, I suggest:

3) It’s not the (proven) case that the Chicken came first but it’s also not the (proven) case that the Egg came first.

(Neutral answer) Your original answer “both came first” may not be actually potentially true. For example Genetics/Evolution says that something Un-Chicken :COLeek: laid a mutated egg that hatched as ‘Chicken’ :headscratch2:

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Tina;594]Pro – I really don’t accept: 3) “The Chicken and the egg both came first”as the definitive Protheory answer.

The question seeks an answer that acknowledges the indeterminate nature of the question, therefore, I suggest :3) It’s not the (proven) case that the Chicken came first but it’s also not the (proven) case that the Egg came first.

(Neutral answer) Your original answer “both came first” may not be actually potentially true. For example Genetics/Evolution says that something Un-Chicken :COLeek: laid a mutated egg that hatched as ‘Chicken’:headscratch2:[/quote]

Great to have you back on board Tina 😀 I wouldn’t expect you to accept that answer you quoted as my full Pro theory answer as it only deals with the neutral option.

The fully qualified answer on my essay is:

1. The chicken came first.

2. The egg came first.

3. The chicken and the egg both came first (neutral).

Simultaneously.

This basically says what you suggested in essence, all three of these answers (1,2,3) taken together are my answer(s) to the question.

Not just the third option of neutrality. I know I wrote it seemingly as a sequence but it’s meant to read as a three pronged statement.

All three suggestions are meant to be read simultaneously which evaluates to your own suggestion so we’re both on the same path here :meditate:

Tina – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=Pro;595] The fully qualified answer on my essay is:

1. The chicken came first.

2. The egg came first.

3. The chicken and the egg both came first (neutral).

Simultaneously. All three suggestions are meant to be read simultaneously :meditate:[/quote]

What about this?

1. The chicken came first. OR

2. The egg came first. OR

3. The chicken and the egg both came first.Does the inclusion of “OR” work with Simultaneous idea?

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Yes, I think this works the same as the other way, all Pro theory does is suggest the three possibilities and then it’s a choice (OR) if you choose it to be 🙂

mergatroidal – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Ok, because it takes two to tango and make a biological chicken, the first chickens actually came from other individual “almost a real, actual chicken” that carried the genetic codes for actual chickens.

There are no actual chickens yet, but the genetic code has cooked up and evolved over time so that there is a pool of genetic code inside a number of “almost real, actual chickens.”

For the first time in the history of the universe the genetic pool is ripe for creating the very first real chickens. Genetic code for actual chickens awaits dissemination.

And of course a number of “almost a real, actual chickens” did what two animals have to do to procreate, and some of their offspring did not become chickens, and some of their offspring did become the first “actual chickens.”

And once two of these “actual chickens” brought their genetic code together, the very first chicken egg was created, and for all time forward the offspring are always chickens (barring the congenital deformity, the genetic fluke.) What came first: the chicken or the egg?

The chicken. One has to think about it mechanically, as if you were to set about to actually do something like this on your own. Thinking through the procedure step by step, with what we know today, there’s only one way it could be done, or recreated. 🙂

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=mergatroidal;604]Ok, because it takes two to tango and make a biological chicken, the first chickens actually came from other individual “almost real, actual chicken” that carried the genetic codes for actual chickens.

There are no actual chickens yet, but the genetic code has cooked up and evolved over time so that there is a pool of genetic code inside a number of “almost real, actual chickens.”

For the first time in the history of the universe the genetic pool is ripe for creating the very first real chickens.Genetic code for actual chickens awaits dissemination.

And of course a number of “almost a real, actual chickens” did what two animals have to do to procreate, and some of their offspring did not become chickens, and some of their offspring did become the first “actual chickens.”

And once two of these “actual chickens” brought their genetic code together, the very first chicken egg was created, and for all time forward the offspring are always chickens (barring the congenital deformity, the genetic fluke).

What came first: the chicken or the egg? The chicken. One has to think about it mechanically, as if you were to set about to actually do something like this on your own.

Thinking through the procedure step by step, with what we know today, there’s only one way it could be done, or recreated.:)[/quote]

Good answer, and welcome to the forum 🙂 I’m still not sure what to think to be honest, there’s so many different solutions or answers to this problem that it’s mind boggling isn’t it.

I wrote this topic originally as a philosophical paradox, not really expecting it to be seen as a physical idea but the replies so far have been excellent, it really sparked a good debate which was what I was hoping for.

I suppose what you’re saying is right isn’t it, the fact that an ‘egg’ is a genetic block of code in a way that creates other chickens in much the same way that all other species are able to reproduce.

My own answer to this problem is that both chicken and egg are interdependent I suppose, both exist because the other does in a way.I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this :thumbup:

mergatroidal – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Well, yes at best it’s a specific train of thought to a question only sages ask and engage in conversation with others with.Pro, glad I found this site. Do you allow advertisements?

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=mergatroidal;606]Well, yes at best it’s a specific train of thought to a question only sages ask and engage in conversation with others with.Pro, glad I found this site. Do you allow advertisements?[/quote]

The sage, this is a favourite topic of mine as discussed in my Tao Te Ching thread Advertisements, it depends on what you mean by this really.

I don’t mind ‘appropriate’ (non-offensive/non-adult) signatures in text or personal profiles, but I’d have to say again it depends on what you’re looking to advertise.Could you let me know what you have in mind please 🙂

neworderarmy – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

Wow, I’ve found myself my new favourite website, hands down! Didn’t think anybody else out there actually thought as deeply as myself about the universe.

Let me just start by saying I am an 18 year old Atheist from Australia. (the name is Jonathan by the way). As much as I hate explaining things with evolution, because it bores me…

I think the egg must have came first. I’m no scientist. But I just assume the egg somehow… evolved into a hatching egg… resulting in the physical formation of the Chicken. (this can stand for anything, not just chickens too).

Pro – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

[quote=neworderarmy]Wow, I’ve found myself my new favourite website, hands down! Didn’t think anybody else out there actually thought as deeply as myself about the universe.

Let me just start by saying I am an 18 year old Atheist from Australia. (the name is Jonathan by the way). As much as I hate explaining things with evolution, because it bores me…

I think the egg must have came first. I’m no scientist. But I just assume the egg somehow… evolved into a hatching egg… resulting in the physical formation of the Chicken. (this can stand for anything, not just chickens too).[/quote]

Hey Jonathan, how are you? I’m Pro, author and owner of this site 🙂

Thanks for your kind comments about things, I’ve put a lot of work into this place over the years. Pro theory says that there are three simultaneously possible answers to the chicken and the egg problem. In the physical sense I can totally see why you think towards the evolutionary argument, I’m interested to know what leads you to your conclusion?

Thanks for joining us on here :thumbup:

unvsrlprncpllaw – ‘Re: The Chicken And The Egg’

The word create has a much more specific definition( thus connotation) than being born(birthed) or “producing progeny.” Thus create; defined: ‘to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.’

From this we come to the realization that the “egg” results from “natural processes” and then “evolves” to a higher life form(chicken) through equally “natural and physiological” processes.

The chicken necessarily is the end of these natural processes.

An egg nor a chicken is unique ( though sentiment may emotionalize the issue…still a recurrent natural process).

Further def.: ‘to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design:’ Create implies “intention and design”.

The egg nor the chicken intended nor designed themselves. Such intention demonstratively occurs due to the instinct or prerogative of a former existential being.

Lastly def.: originate, invent.’ The chicken nor the egg originated themselves nor invented themselves. DEDUCTION(purely observational reasoning): The question is not WHAT came first…but WHO( a designer; inventor; originator; creator, intender with intention(s)) came first.

This appropriately relegates the relevance of WHAT came first “the chicken or the egg” to a position of peripheral relevance. Thus PI defined= Periphery; non-importance.

We have our thoughts reversed. For that( impersonal PI…as an expression or quality of an “intelligence”) which has been considered peripheral is much more a point of focus than that which presently is controversial.what CAME(“to be”) first ETHER -ORE…”the chicken or the egg”.

I will not add fuel to that debate. However WHO WAS first (Alpha)? “THE INTELLIGENT FORCE behind (before; in front of) the created Beings (BE-‘CAME’).

It is true that the divine name for God as revealed in the bible and that who is represented by the tetragramaton( 4 Hebrew characters of the name)…his name is explicitly defined as “to be” or “HE causes to become”. The chicken and the egg are in a most inferior way the ‘effect’ stemming from the ‘CAUSER

[Author]

Posts