Sometimes, the question “why?” is meaningless. If “all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens” is a premise, that is the “why”. Asking the why of the why is a tautology.
I know that this doesn’t actually contribute in any way, but chickens were bred into exsistance by humans, so, one female bird was bred with a different male bird and the resulting eggs were chickens. Therefore, the egg came before the chicken.
Sometimes, the question “why?” is meaningless. If “all chickens came from eggs, and all eggs came from chickens” is a premise, that is the “why”. Asking the why of the why is a tautology.
But why do you assume all chickens came from eggs and all eggs came from chickens?
How is this different than just having “God exists” as a premise?
I don’t think it is different in itself. I think some premises are more useful than others, an the anticipating-experience-sense.
I know that this doesn’t actually contribute in any way, but chickens were bred into exsistance by humans, so, one female bird was bred with a different male bird and the resulting eggs were chickens. Therefore, the egg came before the chicken.
NO!!
You did not just vote that stupid comment up! Someone vote it down Right Now!!!
People, on Less Wrong, you do not vote up silly comments on the topic of bird breeding. You vote up serious comments on the topic of rationality.
Got it?