RicOlie_2 said:
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.
May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?
Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?
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).
Is it not equally possible to reverse such an argument?
Might it not have been due to a general demeanor of serious purpose that such a counter claim to his conduct might have had its inception? To clarify, is it not possible that, in seeing one of such a disposition becoming popular, an alternate version of his comportment might have been circulated with an express purpose of undermining credibility?
Provided only with such hearsay evidence, who among the listeners might have been capable of effectively countering such a campaign?
Alternately, if Jesus had been known for his joviality, might one not expect to locate a single qualifying parable?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe
...and if it isn't? Then it's the egg.
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.
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.
It is certainly possible.
Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.
A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
DuracellEnergizer said:
Isn't there another, older philosophy thread buried somewhere in the mire of this forum?
There's a religion thread, which might be considered to include philosophy, but no thread designated solely for the subject has been active at all recently.
I don't know if this counts: :P
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Philosophical-Ramblings/topic/14657/
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.
Typical rooster.
Post Praetorian said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.
It is certainly possible.
Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.
A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?
what of bacon?
The blue elephant in the room.
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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.
May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?
How so?
Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?
I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.
Mrebo said:
Post Praetorian said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.
It is certainly possible.
Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.
A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?
what of bacon?
Perhaps chicken bacon?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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.
May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?
How so?
Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?
Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?
I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.
It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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.
May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?
How so?
Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?
As those are not serious questions, I fear I am not allowed to discuss them freely hereabouts.
Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?
I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.
It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.
The biblical sense? :P
Post Praetorian said:
Mrebo said:
Post Praetorian said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.
It is certainly possible.
Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.
A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?
what of bacon?
Perhaps chicken bacon?
I meant Francis Bacon ;)
The blue elephant in the room.
Do chickens have personalities? If so, should we be eating them?
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Post Praetorian said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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.
May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?
How so?
Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?
As those are not serious questions, I fear I am not allowed to discuss them freely hereabouts.
Please note the word of a given month carefully hidden in the title of this thread. Kindly select one of its alternate meanings for greater clarity as to this thread's purported purpose. Finally, carry on as per usual.
Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?
I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.
It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.
The biblical sense? :P
Well, surely...!
Also, if the shoe may fit, as it were, further evidence of a lazy god:
1) He purportedly made man in his image.
2) The vast majority of mankind is lazy.
3) God made the giraffe.
4) God allowed the dinosaurs to become extinct before allowing mankind to see them.
5) God flooded the world and could only be bothered to assist a single family build a rather ungainly and unimaginatively crafted (and unbelievably tiny) boat and then merely suggested that all the world's animals were somehow to fit inside.
5b) He designed said boat with but a single window.
6) He designed all of space but then forgot to fill most of it in.
7) To compensate for this lack of material he cobbled together 'dark matter' so that he could still maintain gravitational integrity but did not have to make any more visible material.
8) God came to earth as Jesus, claimed it was important, claimed we could only enter Heaven if we should follow his new decrees, and then failed to write any of these messages down.
9) Also of note: he seemingly has been on an extended holiday for several thousand years.
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Mrebo said:
Post Praetorian said:
Mrebo said:
Post Praetorian said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
If this is a block universe -- with all points in the past, present, and future co-existing at once in the sea of eternity -- then the question is meaningless; neither the chicken nor the egg came first.
It is certainly possible.
Although in such a universe in which lunch may follow supper it is quite meaningless to consider meaning...yet here we are so doing so if one is willing to make one such assumption it might be fair to make another.
A further point to consider might be, if we are indeed living face forwards, what might be expected to come last? Is it the chicken or the egg? Or might both be cooked together and served with toasts' toasted toast?
what of bacon?
Perhaps chicken bacon?
I meant Francis Bacon ;)
Equally tasty, I'm sure
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Possessed said:
Do chickens have personalities? If so, should we be eating them?
Is not personality synonymous with flavor?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Possessed said:
Do chickens have personalities? If so, should we be eating them?
Spiders have different temperaments--should we be squishing them?
No we shouldn't, because they weed out things much worse such as flies, cockroaches, stuff.
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
真実
imperialscum said:
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.
Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Post Praetorian said:
imperialscum said:
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.
Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?
I don't think you understood the problem. The name of the colour is standardised based on the frequency of radiation emitted by some common and distinct objects in the nature. Why do you call the sky blue? Not because of what you experienced inside your brain but because someone told you that the sky is blue. So only after that you associated your brain perception to what you were being taught. However brain perception of sky can be different from person to person and yet we will all call it blue because that is how we were being taught and because the radiation frequency is universal.
Same with the fall colours, as you gave the example. We were told that the leafs are red and yellow in autumn. And we have no problem calling it red and yellow despite possible different brain perceptions. This is simply because we associated our different brain perception to the particular frequency of radiation, which is universal.
真実
So if I present this the other way around. We are infants without any prior experience. We both look at an cubical object emitting a radiation at frequency about 650THz. What you experience in your brain is this:
and what I experience in my brain is this:
We are both told by the parents that this object is blue. Then we go outside and we see the sky for the first time. Will we both call it blue? Of course we will.
真実
imperialscum said:
Post Praetorian said:
imperialscum said:
Is the radiation with frequency of 650THz (blue colour) decoded the same way in brain between different people? Could it be that what is my brain's blue is your brain's red? But we all call it blue because that is how we were taught by parents looking at the same object, while in fact experiencing a different thing in our brain.
It is possible, however such a concept is unlikely given the universal acceptance of color groupings such as fall colors, pastels, jewel tones, etc. Further, if my sky were red instead of blue my sunsets would be much less spectacular. My sunsets are spectacular therefor the sky cannot be red.
Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?
I don't think you understood the problem.
It was understood in the context of a single color shift. With such a concept it seemed unlikely to expect all colors of a given group to shift in a similar vein given the apparent randomness of the first occurrence.
The name of the colour is standardised based on the frequency of radiation emitted by some common and distinct objects in the nature. Why do you call the sky blue? Not because of what you experienced inside your brain but because someone told you that the sky is blue. So only after that you associated your brain perception to what you were being taught. However brain perception of sky can be different from person to person and yet we will all call it blue because that is how we were being taught and because the radiation frequency is universal.
Same with the fall colours, as you gave the example. We were told that the leafs are red and yellow in autumn. And we have no problem calling it red and yellow despite possible different brain perceptions. This is simply because we associated our different brain perception to the particular frequency of radiation, which is universal.
If all colors of a given family were to shift equally, would the possibility that they might so differ from individual to individual truly matter so long as they remained so similarly indexed?
It is possible. It might be interesting to conceive of an experiment to prove or disprove such a concept, but lacking such an aegis I must leave this as merely a possibility.
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
imperialscum said:
So if I present this the other way around. We are infants without any prior experience. We both look at an cubical object emitting a radiation at frequency about 650THz. What you experience in your brain is this:
and what I experience in my brain is this:
We are both told by the parents that this object is blue. Then we go outside and we see the sky for the first time. Will we both call it blue? Of course we will.
Thank you for your offer of the above brown and green respective boxes in mine thread of philosophical discussions, however I must refuse such a kind offer as I have no use for them now that Christmas has passed. If you do not wish to take them back we may both simply leave them out in the hopes that one of the less fortunate members may find them and delight in their perfectly squarish appearance.
Regards,
Praetorian
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
Post Praetorian said:
It is possible. It might be interesting to conceive of an experiment to prove or disprove such a concept, but lacking such an aegis I must leave this as merely a possibility.
I don't believe it is possible to conceive an experiment that would prove my theory with existing technology. Unless we can somehow read the brain perception of an individual, it is impossible to do so.
真実
Post Praetorian said:
Alternately, how might one describe a color one cannot see?
As a colour out of space.