I was really high watching the Story of Samson, a biblical figure. At one point in the story Sampson calls out to God to grant him a miracle & God grants it instantly. The narrator emphasizes how the God of the bible would communicate with people & instantly grant miracles often but that stopped later on.

It got me thinking about how before man invented these complex systems, cities & structures, quite literally everything that exists today would be magical.

Conceptualizing a building when all anyone can see in front of them is pure space would probably feel like divine inspiration. As our systems of governance, politics, urban design & more became more complex & we were born into it for generations, it became more difficult for us to conceptualize a world outside of the world humans have built.

In our programmed minds it becomes more difficult to be creative & inventive because the systems we have built overwhelm our senses.

Our field of infinite potential becomes a field of categories to choose from. But ultimately that field of potential exists outside of our hyperreality & you can tap into it if you choose.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

Thesis:

After considering shortcomings of typical modal collapse arguments, I will offer a new argument which tries to avoid those issues.

I can already tell what the classical theists reading this are thinking. "This is an issue that has been debated several times. People just refuse to understand classical theism." Don't worry, in fact, I'm going to try and give critiques of normal modal collapse arguments, but I'm also going to give a newer formulation of the argument.

This post will draw lots of inspiration from this paper written by Schmid. https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHTFD-5.pdf

Before I continue, I have to define a few terms and positions.

Traditional theism: A concept of God which states that God is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and all-good, pure perfection, omnipresent, necessary, and so on.

Classical theism: Classical theism is a model of the traditional monotheistic God. Ryan Mullins notes that there are four extra considerations which makes classical theism unique among other models. That is divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and timelessness. Divine simplicity in a nutshell is that whatever is in God, is god. To elaborate, any property intrinsic to God is identical to God. An example would be that God is his nature, his existence, his essence, etc. Immutability is the view that God cannot undergo any intrinsic change. Some classical theists may argue that God can still undergo cambridge or extrinsic change, but this isn't the only view. Impassibility if I understand correctly is the view that God cannot be causally effected by anything outside of him. Timelessness seems pretty obvious, but in case you're confused, it's the view that God doesn't stand in temporal relations. God is not within time, and God thus cannot undergo succession.

There's other views which one could take like a no real relations doctrine and so on, but I won't get into that.

Basic Modal Collapse Argument

1. Necessarily, God exists.
2. God is identical to his act of creation.
3. Necessarily, God's act of creation exists.

The justifications are pretty basic for this argument. The first premise just follows from the assumption of traditional theism, classical theism being one such form. The second premise would naturally follow from the assumption of DDS(Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). Premise three should then follow. As Ryan Mullins puts it:

> Does divine simplicity ent

It really does, I swear!

Buenosdillas

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

You take away their little brooms

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

There hasn't been a post all year!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Why

It’s pronounced “Noel.”

After all his first name is No-vac

What, then, is Chinese rap?

Edit:

Notable mentions from the comments:

• Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Serbian hits

• French/Finnish art

• Country/Canadian rap

• Chinese/Country/Canadian rock

• Turkish/Tunisian/Taiwanese rap

There hasn't been a single post this year!

(Happy 2022 from New Zealand)

Nothing, it just waved

Thesis:

After considering shortcomings of typical modal collapse arguments, I will offer a new argument which tries to avoid those issues.

I can already tell what the classical theists reading this are thinking. "This is an issue that has been debated several times. People just refuse to understand classical theism." Don't worry, in fact, I'm going to try and give critiques of normal modal collapse arguments, but I'm also going to give a newer formulation of the argument.

This post will draw lots of inspiration from this paper written by Schmid. https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHTFD-5.pdf

Before I continue, I have to define a few terms and positions.

Traditional theism: A concept of God which states that God is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and all-good, pure perfection, omnipresent, necessary, and so on.

Classical theism: Classical theism is a model of the traditional monotheistic God. Ryan Mullins notes that there are four extra considerations which makes classical theism unique among other models. That is divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and timelessness. Divine simplicity in a nutshell is that whatever is in God, is god. To elaborate, any property intrinsic to God is identical to God. An example would be that God is his nature, his existence, his essence, etc. Immutability is the view that God cannot undergo any intrinsic change. Some classical theists may argue that God can still undergo cambridge or extrinsic change, but this isn't the only view. Impassibility if I understand correctly is the view that God cannot be causally effected by anything outside of him. Timelessness seems pretty obvious, but in case you're confused, it's the view that God doesn't stand in temporal relations. God is not within time, and God thus cannot undergo succession.

There's other views which one could take like a no real relations doctrine and so on, but I won't get into that.

Basic Modal Collapse Argument

1. Necessarily, God exists.
2. God is identical to his act of creation.
3. Necessarily, God's act of creation exists.

The justifications are pretty basic for this argument. The first premise just follows from the assumption of traditional theism, classical theism being one such form. The second premise would naturally follow from the assumption of DDS(Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). Premise three should then follow. As Ryan Mullins puts it:

>Does divine simplicity enta