Sign In

The Philosophy Thread - Where Serious Questions "May" Be Discussed

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This thread is intended to provide a means by which thought-provoking topics may be discussed in as austere or erudite a fashion as desired...

(or, perhaps as likely, this may simply devolve into a place to poke fun at those who attempt to do so...)

The rules (unenforceable) are only that kindness be prevalent in all discussions, that all responses to questions be read in a light mental tone (no condescension, hostility, negativity, etc.) and that I...

naturally have the last word.

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

timdiggerm said:

zyzzogeton

 This is too ambiguous a topic for discussion herein. Kindly refer to the next post for greater clarity in how to formulate a proper preface for a given argument...

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

Post Praetorian said:

timdiggerm said:

zyzzogeton

 This is too ambiguous a topic for discussion herein. Kindly refer to the next post for greater clarity in how to formulate a proper preface for a given argument...

 Sorry, I just wanted to have the last word. 

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

Post Praetorian said:

timdiggerm said:

zyzzogeton

 This is too ambiguous a topic for discussion herein. Kindly refer to the next post for greater clarity in how to formulate a proper preface for a given argument...

 Sorry, I just wanted to have the last word. 

Well seeing as you have posted it in this thread it now belongs to me.

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

I don't think that posting in your thread transfer ownership of my words to you.

If anyone other than mine, they're jay's now.

Author
Time

Given that such was specified as a condition (albeit unenforceable) to posting in this thread, it must remain mine--not merely in theory, but in the full actuality of fact (note the inability to seemingly withdraw it from mine possession).

Further, Jay may be holding it as a matter of convenience, but clearly it is being held within my own repository of information within this same forum; therefor it is most certainly designated to be mine.

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

Given the above, the last word can only be 'yes'

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.

Author
Time

I'm pretty sure it's either "toasts toast toast" or "toast toasts toast"

Author
Time

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

But which God are we talking about?

God, after all, is only a title for the current president of the universe.

The previous president of the universe is God's political rival, Satan, who was ousted after a particularly clever campaign by Jesus, who sold himself as a political savior who was nevertheless relatable to the common man.

Unfortunately, upon taking the oath of Godhood, Jesus has apparently continued many of the failed policies of his predecessor. Most notably, he has failed to close Hell, where many are still incarcerated due to simple ignorance of official divine policy or of petty offenses such as masturbation or eating shellfish.

What a grand and intoxicating innocence. How could you be so naive? There is no escape. Come, lay down your weapons. It is not too late for my mercy.
A New Hope Technicolor Recreation (Released!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V3 Released!) and The Starlight Project (WORKPRINT RELEASED!)

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

I'm pretty sure it's either "toasts toast toast" or "toast toasts toast"

 Two pieces of toast are not referred to as two toasts, so it's definitely toast toasts toast.

Author
Time

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Psalm 2:2-4 and 37:12-13 has God laughing at the foolishness of the wicked. That could be taken as a sense of humour, but could also be taken as sadistic, depending on how one views things. A loving God certainly wouldn't be happy about a wicked person suffering eternal punishment.

So, I think the Christian God has a sense of humour. Whether such a thing is really possible must be explored through further discussion.

Author
Time

Ryan McAvoy said:

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

 This is a ridiculous and meaningless statement resulting from a false dichotomy.

Is it not obvious that it must have been the farmer who came first?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

But which God are we talking about?

Was not a reference given above? www.bible.com

God, after all, is only a title for the current president of the universe.

The previous president of the universe is God's political rival, Satan, who was ousted after a particularly clever campaign by Jesus, who sold himself as a political savior who was nevertheless relatable to the common man.

Unfortunately, upon taking the oath of Godhood, Jesus has apparently continued many of the failed policies of his predecessor. Most notably, he has failed to close Hell, where many are still incarcerated due to simple ignorance of official divine policy

Is it possible that his failure to so do may have its root in the probability that Hell was vacant at the time? 

or of petty offenses such as masturbation or eating shellfish.

Or possibly shellfish eating, which may have been an unfortunate phonetic transcriptional error of the more conventional selfish eating which today seemingly afflicts a majority of certain given populations.   

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Alternately is it not possible he might merely have been taken to drink-- often, and in quantity?

Psalm 2:2-4 and 37:12-13 has God laughing at the foolishness of the wicked. That could be taken as a sense of humour, but could also be taken as sadistic, depending on how one views things. A loving God certainly wouldn't be happy about a wicked person suffering eternal punishment.

Neither of which might seemingly support the concept of a light sense of humor...

So, I think the Christian God has a sense of humour. Whether such a thing is really possible must be explored through further discussion.

 Certainly it would be interesting to consider further.

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Alternately is it not possible he might merely have been taken to drink-- often, and in quantity?

Certainly possible, but as my "argument" presupposes that he was/is God, I would consider it rather improbable. If Jesus' opponents thought it unsuitable for a respectable teacher to crack jokes or have a good laugh now and then, they may have attempted to undermine his authority by accusing him of drunkenness (something that probably wouldn't have been taken seriously if Jesus was serious).

Author
Time

God must have a sense of humor that it is both austere and erudite. I hope he chimes in.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Post Praetorian said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

 This is a ridiculous and meaningless statement resulting from a false dichotomy.

Is it not obvious that it must have been the farmer who came first?

The rooster came first.

Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back

         Davnes007 LogoCanadian Flag

          If you want Nice, go to France

Author
Time

Davnes007 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Answer: The egg obviously.

 This is a ridiculous and meaningless statement resulting from a false dichotomy.

Is it not obvious that it must have been the farmer who came first?

The rooster came first.

 <sigh>

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”