Firstly, I posted this discussion already but it was removed for some reason. I'm not sure if that's an attempt of censorship or not.

I don't appreciate philophical enquiries being banned without due explanation. If we cannot have freedom of speech on this forum then where? Are we really allowed to think freely if we cannot posit all questions? I don't believe this was a harmful or hateful question to ask. It certainly wasn't my intention. I'm just curious to discuss ideas with contributors.

Now having said that I repost it in persistence of one's freedom of thought.

If two people of certain awareness (personal premises) regarding a topic, disagree on it, one saying x because its what they observe, and one saying y because its what they observe, who then do we believe?

Which ought we deem as true? Or is the whole Truth outside of argument, exterior to contradiction/paradox?

For example if one says the chicken came first and the other says the egg came first, in an given instance, who do we say is correct, or perhaps a third person can point to a larger truth beyond the individual personal truths - for example that our current definition of "chicken" and "egg" were not always the case. And that in actual fact the concept of an egg and chicken have evolved over time, through change making the argument moot, and thus the paradox fallible to a better explanation.

Every Chicken was different to the chicken before it, slightly more evolved, and thus likewise every one of their eggs in turn holds different genetic information to make a chicken.

In this case the actual Truth of the paradox is a spectrum of change over vast periods of time - Dissolving the discrete finite paradox as it is in reference to the present moment.

If someone wants to ban my line of thinking again, would you at the very least extend the courtesy of explaining why? Administrators?!