Inspired by a The Five w/ Jive episode with Drooski: Do logic and theism conflict?
Unless god is limited by physics, yes. Or by laws which he/she/it/they would have made.
Every theistic religion has large parts that conflict heavily with logic.
Athe discrepancies are caused by our interpretation or understanding.
Fascinatingly, this is exactly the same reasons for the disconnects between science and logic.
Net ... the frailties of man get in our way.
It is silly (and frankly lazy) to point to discrepancies in either science or theology and suggest that they discredit either.
Our understanding continues to evolve on both topics. As we draw closer to God and science, we learn more about both!
Think, we don't learn more about God. He is unknowable. We can only learn more about science.
Trav ... that's simply not true. How ridiculous would it be of I said that science is unknowable? How do your learn about science? How Michael time have you invested? What about experiments, have conducted any scientific experiments?
I don't know what Michael time is.
Can I change the topic?
I want to know why you don't support welfare. Christian principles teach us to give to the needy. Yet Christian Republicans like yourself don't believe in welfare. Can you explain that?
At this point, the lacking evidence needed to explain God is greater than the evidence to prove He exists.
i.e. Where did God come from?
Therefore, I would say theism is illogical.
Trav ... You are entitled to believe what you will, however that belief does not change the absolute truth.
There was a time when you could have thought that the sun revolved around the earth, but that is completely independent from the fact.
Right Think, no one can see the absolute truth. We can only see the evidence that suggests different truths.
And yes, what we think we know changes.
For example, it would have been logical to believe in God 200 years ago.
Trav ... yep, and logical to believe in God today as well.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Science can now explain how life began and how this replicating protein evolved into humans. How would God further explain phenomena?
He isn't needed anymore. He's an extra variable that no longer fits.
Trav ... it appears that you've fallen into the Flat Earth Society's trap!
They thought they knew everything there was to know on the subject. We now look back and smile at their short-sighted reliance on the evolution of their knowledge.
Trav ... what we now know about the beginning of life is FAR from definitive.
Our current view inspires FAR more questions than it answers, proving that now, more than ever, there is need to believe and seek knowledge, the source of which is God.
Think, I haven't fallen into any trap. I'm sure I know more about the beginning of life than you. I studied it in college.
Like I agreed with you before, we don't know everything. I hope your belief in God provides you with solace.
Trav ... glad to hear! Please don't presume you know more just because you took a few classes. I'm sure you'll agree that there are lots of folks who mistake learning for wisdom.
As we have compared curricula or experiences, beware of assumptions!
Actually we haven't compared curricula or experiences. How do you know what you know about the origin of life?
Not remotely. (Unless you are using "theism" in the specific form, by which you refer to a belief in a god who exists, but does nothing else.)
I don't think so. Much of the Bible is very logical.
The only Bible. The Holy Bible. Authored by the almighty.
Whose holy bible? Whose almighty? There are more than one.
There is only one or else He wouldn't be "almighty." The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You know me too well to think that I may be talking about something else.
There are at least two different bibles about the god of Isaac and Jacob, and three about the god of Abraham.
I'm pointing out that asserting your beliefs as presumptively correct is an ending point, not a starting point, for discussion.
I guess there are two, the real one (the Holy Bible with 66 books), then the adulterated Roman Catholic version. There are definitely different translations, but the same meaning.
The question asked if my faith is logical, it is. It is not an opinion. That's like asking if 2+2=4. Although I'm sure some will disagree, it doesn't change whether or not it is true.
The question asked if logic and theism conflict. It didn't say anything about your specific religion.
You're also ignoring the Tanakh.
Okay, thanks for the reminder, I don't have the feature that allows for me to see the question as I type my comments, yet. Yes, it would depend on the "religion." Some don't make any sense, but as far as Christianity goes, it seems logical to me.
To me they do. Too much contradiction and inaccuracies and plagiarism.
The same crowd that says belief in God is illogical are the same ones that will argue that there are multiverses with every possible outcome playing out and say its true with a straight face.
No, they are complementary.
No, they are by no means mutually exclusive
Do song and dance conflict? Depends on the song. Depends on the dance. Depends on the perception of those watching.
Theism is the perfect explanation for the logically/scientifically unexplainable. They only deviation between science/logic and Theism is where the understanding of science/logic has not evolved to match what we know Theologically.
I think so, based on my own experience. I guess I can't speak for everyone because logic and theism both have very broad interpretations for people.
No: See St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and look up Christian Neoplatonism. The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of logic-based theology and apologetics. The Eastern Orthodox Church is more spiritual, but is still rooted in Neoplatonism.
You can use logic to conclude if the premises are all true, but the axiom of theism is "God exists", and if this should not be true, all conclusions are invalid.
Of course not.
I think yes, faith and logic are contradictory since logic is based on facts, not faith. I don't need to "believe" that if A implies B, and A is true, so is B. This doesn't go for DEISM, since it doesn't really require faith, let alone worship.
The most synonemous word for "faith" is "trust." Trust, like faith, is only as good as reasons we have for exercising it. Likewise, belief without reason is misplaced.
This might be a tad nit picky, but logic is not based on facts. It's based on axioms we hold to be true. Nuanced difference
That's why some people's logic is terrible and others more grounded
Good point, Trogdor. You're absolutely colorectal that one can argue with flawless logic, but if the suppositions are wrong, logic won't get you to the right answer.
That said, you are correct that the point is nitpicky. Outside of dedicated philosophers and logicians, what most people mean by "logical" is reasoning properly from truths or facts. Not exactly a textbook definition, but generally accepted.
Dang it Hadley, I'm trying to study for a test here :c
Not my problem sorry broski
You should've studied for it earlier ya big dummy.
Shut up stupid.
E, wtf are you doing? We sound nothing alike right now with your stupid comments on this thread.
Lol you guys make me laugh
Ed makes you laugh*
Ed, you're always way too moderate and pragmatic. Stop confusing people!
I thought I was scary :(
You don't scare me anymore ^.^
Hah, as scary as a puppy dog.
Why is that Miss Hayley?
I'm not really sure.. Lol
Are we one or are we two? Are we many or are we few? Do we exist or are we figments of your imagination? You'll never know Hadley, never...
I don't think you guys are the same person, but that's just me lol
E, what the heck, I told you, idiot...
Why don't you believe us Hadley? :(
Lol unless you're freaking good at creating two entirely different personas, you are just too different.
But hey, maybe you have multiple personalities or something haha
I've been told I'm good at many things...
I was talking about accounting you freaking pervert
I like to think that MrEdhwin represents stupidity, pragmatism, and acceptance of the status quo while I represent the rejection of all those things.
Represents stupidity? Hahaha
Don't worry Ed. I get enough for the both of us ;)
Screw you too jerk
Don't forget that Ed uses his app to be social. I think that's pointless. I use this app to facilitate thought.
Alright, I'm going to give it a rest. I have to go study for a big test...
I used to debate more on this app, then I got tired of having the same arguments
Faith is illogical?
Believing something wholeheartedly without any real evidence whatsoever is definitely illogical. I wish I could say this in a nicer way, but I can't...haha.
Extremely. A vulcan would take one look at a religion and be unable to utter any other syllables other than "Illogical".
Logic and Christianity certainly conflict just because of the built-in inconsistencies. Logic doesn't like inconsistencies. Logic isn't big on a thing with no beginning and no end either. Can the all-powerful make a rock so big he can't lift it?
And logically still be all-powerful if he fails at either? Logic hates conundrums.
You mistake the nature of omnipotence.
What seems illogical to me, is the assertion that an infinite and all-powerful being is in fact limited because of its inability to limit itself. That's circular logic - a logical fallacy - at its worst.
Can the mystery being create a thing it itself cannot create? Bottom line is the answer to this question. It isn't a matter of understanding, it's that the concept of "all powerful" fails, logically. I can do anything, uhh, but not that. Fail.
You ckearly don't understand the Christsin doctrine of omnipotence, and thus, you are arguing against a false view of God.
And curly nobody said it couldn't limit itself. The question is can it do both at the same time, logically? The illogical playground answer to the logical question is: "Of course I could, but I don't want to." Fail.
That makes no sense. To be all-powerful would to mean to have the power to do all things, correct? So you're saying the lack of creating an impossible task makes the being not all-powerful? If anything, that is further proof of omnipotence.
If it can limit itself then it isn't limitless. If it is limitless, than it cannot be limited. To say that it cannot limit itself is not itself a limitation, it is itself the defining characteristic of being limitless.
Most of what you just said supports my assertion that logic fails. As you said, it does not make sense. That isn't a bad thing and doesn't change the faith people have, my point is only that it cannot be resolved logically.
Haha, Zod I was saying that your proof makes no sense. Let's talk in non ambiguous terms. So I say God is omnipotent - nothing is impossible for God. You say, "God can't make an impossible task" or, "he can't make a riddle even he can't solve." Well
Most faiths give up at trying to explain the beginning. Many have something like Genesis, a creation story, that asserts God always existed and always will. Without beginning and without end. So could this all-powerful God change that?
of course he can't! Because nothing is impossible. The lack of the ability to limit your own power is NOT a proof that you are in fact not all-powerful. On the contrary, It is a requisite of being all-powerful.
Sorry, both of you, but the Christian doctrine of omnipotence is NOT that God can do anything.
It may be requisite for being all powerful, but it is also proof that being all powerful cannot be supported by logic. You can get to "pretty powerful" but you can't get to powerful enough to be two opposite things simultaneously.
Well I would love to talk to you about that sometime, Nate. However I'm more trying to show the inconsistency with this thinking more than anything. "Can God create a rock even he can't lift?" There are many deviations, but they're all illogical.
Who is arguing for two opposite things simultaneously?
The simple definition of "omnipotent" creates a contradiction where logic fails. Aquinas solves the contradiction by taking the "omni" out of "omnipotent". That isn't a logical solution, it's a semantic solution. Logic remains unimpressed.
I understand what you're doing, Curly, just not why your doing it. Since no one, not Christians, not atheists, not anyone in between, believes in the doctrine of omnipotence as defined by Zod, what's the point?
I am, only to point out that any claim to a truly omnipotent God fails logically.
You're confusing power with ability. Most people do when trying to discuss this issue.
I wish I had more time to talk tonight, I saw this one too late, unfortunately, but I have to rise very early tomorrow. I'm sure I'll see you around the forums.
The reasoning of your view still escapes me, Zod. From my perspective, it is you who is arguing semantics, with contradictory definitions. I like C.S. Lewis' view on the subject: the Q makes as little sense as asking, "Can God draw a square circle?"
Nate, I understand your point - at this point this is just a en exercise in logic, not theology. What I believe personally is that God is limited by His nature, that is, being perfectly holy, just, benevolent etc. love to hear your view sometime tho.
It is illogical to say defensively either way on the existence of God because you cannot prove it either way
Definitively* not defensively
Same with the fact/idea of a teapot orbiting a planet deep out in space
Or that my computer isn't the one true god
You usually throw out insane claims that have nothing backing them up other than word of mouth
We acknowledge that it's possible, yes, but we don't go around changing lives and dictating laws based on that crazy possibility, like sharia law
Ed stop being ridiculous.
I think Statek is just generalizing everyone into one category.
Shut up E, you're dumb.
Generalizing everybody who believes in a god into the category of believing in a god? Well yeah..
No, you're generalizing that everyone who believes in God tries to dictate how everyone lives.
No, I'm giving an example of how it's screwing up the world
Does it matter that it's not the vast majority? No, but how many terrorist attacks and genocides are you gonna let past you before you start getting pissed?
You're going all over the place here.
Kinda, but it's all consistent
Not kinda, you are. You're just making claim after claim that everyone who believes in God is going to try to tell you how to live and commit genocides, which is obviously not true. A few bad apples ruin the bunch of suppose.
And now you're making up stuff that I never said :P
And yeah, a few bad apples ruin the bunch, so why let the apples go bad? Take away the instructions/bacteria-etc (religious text) that tells them to go bad and the bunch is a lot better off
Lol, removing religious texts would do nothing in making the world a better place, bad people will still be bad.
Eh, areas of lesser religious affiliations have lower crime rates and higher test scores, compared to your higher areas like in the Middle East..
Yeah, I can make stats say whatever I want too.
Guess my comment didn't post?
No, they don't. They can, if you use religion as a crutch. But that's far from them being incapable of compatibility.
I closed the other one due to a grammatical error. I apologize :)
Oh okay! I thought my phone messed up.
Hayley it's too late for arguments...and on Super Bowl Sunday!!
No. Logic is basically like math. It's just a set of rules for evaluating propositions. The quality of the output is determined by the quality of the input. So something can be perfectly logical but still untrue.
Yes, logically you wouldn't believe in something without evidence.
Technically, someone reporting meeting a god (so pick your favorite religious text) is evidence. It isn't conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.
Yes you can. It's called Faith.
Faith is illogical.
How are you defining "faith," MisterE?
How exactly is it illogical?
MrE and Ed are trolling.
No it's not E.
Trust or belief without legitimate evidence.
Faith is believing something despite there being no evidence for it. Faith is essentially the suspension of logic.
But you have faith there is no God because their is no evidence that he does not exist
But then you're making judgments in the definition of the word. What makes evidence "legitimate"? I'm not trying to be difficult; I just think that it is too easy to say that theism is inherently illogical just bc so many uses of it are unjustified.
There is also no evidence that I am not a god in disguise
Why don't you have faith in me?
Again, it's incorrect to say there is "no" evidence, Deus. It sounds like MisterE is saying that the evidence there is is illegitimate, so I am trying to draw out how we determine evidentiary legitimacy.
E- you not considering it legitimate doesn't make it illogical.
Deus- how exactly is it the suspension of logic? (which isn't inherently illogical, by the way)
I have the same amount of faith that no god exists that I do unicorns, leprechauns, and middle earth don't exist. No faith is required for atheism since it is a default position.
Why do you claim it's default? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim? Or do you simply assume?
The evidence for a person believing they interacted with a deity is completely subjective with no way to verify this.
Let me give another example that you should be able to understand
What is your stance on this, "My dog is a god"?
Obviously your default stance is not believing it, or else you would go around believing everything you heard
The only evidence is testimonial. Just because someone said it happened doesn't mean it actually happened.
Atheism is default because if no one came up with the idea of a deity than everyone would be a theist. Do you believe in the snuffleuplous? you've never heard of it? that makes you an asnuffleuplous.
You can go ahead and believe your dog is a God, I won't judge you.
would be an atheist**
Exactly. The burden of proof is placed on the one who is making the claim.
Who's to say your dog isn't a god? How do you define "god"? How do you define "theism," for that matter?
I understand the point about making a claim and having the burden of defending it, but in the realm of philosophy it's a bit more complicated
I'd be highly skeptical, and not knowing of something is very different from familiarity with the concept then rejecting it.
And there are certainly instances where belief had no apparent origins... any proof of your theory?
than that. For instance, how do you "prove" that something is good or evil? How do you "prove" that consciousness, experience, your senses aren't all an illusion?
Also, if atheism is default, how did faith even originate?
A person who has never heard of a deity is an atheist. A person who has heard of a deity and rejects the idea is an atheist. Atheism is the default position. I don't believe I created a theory, so I don't understand the second part of your comment.
To say that anything is a "default position" is actually to make a lot of philosophical and psychological assumptions. How do you know that theists aren't born with a wholly different set of senses? You'd never have a way to compare.
I have no clue how faith originated, that would be something that one would consult their local anthropologist on.
You keep making a claim but not backing it up. Repeating yourself without proving anything doesn't make it any truer.
And it's a simple question, really. If people won't come up with the concept of(a) god(s) on their own, how did the concept begin?
But if you have no clue how it originated, then how can you implicitly claim that its origins lie in the development of belief be people who were previously atheists?
The default position is to not believe in a qaugzar, no one has heard of a quagzar because I made it up. Thus the default position is to not believe in it because no one has heard of it in order to believe in it. A deity is the same, if no one had
had ever heard of it than everyone would be an atheist. Thus atheism is the default position.
Now your postulating on specific belief systems, not faith overall...
Does something have to have a word or name attached to it on order to be believed? You seem to be suggesting that it does. Is that a claim that language is a prerequisite for belief, then?
Faith has absolutely nothing to with my argument and is a red herring. Faith is illogical because by definition it suspends judgement and trusts emotion. And yes, I would suppose that language would be a prerequisite to theism since ideas can only be
spread via language and writing and language predates writing.
But then forming any belief-state at all would require language. So the "default" state for human existence is ... Nothing - but this doesn't seem to square with what we know about human psychology. How do you create something out of nothing?
And why do you say that faith is based on emotion? For that matter, why do you (implicitly) argue that emotion is inherently illogical? How does emotion have anything to so with logic at all? You can be emotional and logical at the same time.
Bethany, stop using your lawyer skills. It's making my head hurt :)
Very easily, from nothingness the only thing that can possibly happen is something.
Hahaha sorry MisterE - these are combined with my philosophy skills too, so I'm doubly annoying on this topic ;)
Deus, only in the technical literal sense that for anything to "happen" it must be something (i.e., "nothing" does not "happen").
Bethany why am I even bothering to comment? ;)
I'll add, to have faith in nothing is ridiculous. Faith to some degree is integral to functioning. Faith there's no arsenic in your eggs, that you won't be fired when buying a car....
Faith by definition is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Arguments from emotion are not logical because a logical argument does not base it's merits on what a person feels it bases its merits on observations and data.
What I'm asking is how "nothing" can result in "something." If the "default" state of human psychological is non-belief in anything, does belief then result from external imposition of "something" or from spontaneous creation of "something"?
Observations and data are based on the five human senses, are they not? Those are "feelings" same as emotions.
Btw I appreciate the discussion. Making me think of things in some new ways. I'm enjoying it :)
No, they are not the same. An emotion is different. I feel happy about a movie when you feel sad about it emotions are subjective while data is objective. Ideas do spontaneously occur in peoples minds, the brain is a hell of an organ.
So what I'm saying is that it's possible and possibly likely that a person was walking around thinking a couple thousand years ago when all of a sudden it happened! The reason the sun rises in the morning is because a god pulls it up! the Homo Sapien
than promulgated this idea and that was the rise of the first theists.
And you're right Rosebud, faith in nothing is ridiculous! Have faith in your fellow human beings! but faith isn't logical despite it being a part of every day functioning.
Data aren't objective as soon as they are perceived by a human brain. Your brain is not objective. Your consciousness is not objective. As soon as you read the data, you've brought it into the realm of senses, which are subjective.
Data itself is objective, it's raw and unaltered. The way it's interoperated is subjective however.
"Data" are an expression of human observation, which is again observed in order to mean anything. "The particles traveled at x velocity" is datum, but even that recorded datum relies on human observation. Again, observation is inherently subjective.
I think we use subjective differently, the way that I'm using it means to be based upon personal feelings rather than facts. Data while observed is not based on my opinion or feelings.
I understand how you're using it. I'm just explaining that your understanding of objectivity is based on the incorrect assumption that it's possible to draw a clear line between things we perceive and things we "feel." They're all in our heads.
Things you "observe" filter through the same imperfect instrument that creates the personal feelings you find inferior to data. Even if facts exist in an objective form "out there," you can't access them any other way. See what I'm saying?
Yes I understand where you're coming from, but the fact that the earth is spherical, bacteria exist, and some birds fly are all objective truths that are data.
As far as we know, yes. But the sentence you just wrote expressing those facts is not objective; your brain had to create it first. So even if the facts are objective, their expression isn't and can't be.
This is where our differing definitions of the word objective and subjective differ. Because in my definition it can and is objective. I am subjective, but the facts I stated are objective despite me, a subjective being having typed them.
My point is that you cannot state those facts objectively. When you state them, they are not objective because in order to be stated, they have had to be processed by your mind. It introduces the possibility of error. Whatever the objective fact "is"
out there in the world, you individually can never exactly know it objectively, because the act of "knowing" it or engaging the fact in any manner involves exercising your subjective consciousness.
Lol, now this is just where we disagree. The sentence and the way I conveyed those facts was objective because it took no bias and had no opinion to it. This is where it would just make sense to agree to disagree because there's nothing left to
really argue or discuss. I honestly don't know how we managed to get to this from whether or not theism is logical.
Objective/subjective isn't about "opinion" or "bias." It's a philosophical description of situated ness (or lack thereof). It's a key principle in epistemology, which is the relevant field when we're talking about justified beliefs. You brought us
into justificatory territory with your invocation of "evidence" as being connected to logic (technically, it isn't; logic is just math applied to language. To say something is logical is not to say it is true, but that it follows from its premises).
My understanding, the understanding that my anthropology teacher used/uses (assuming they're not dead.) and the definition found in the dictionaries that I have looked at of objective/subjective relate to directly to opinion, this I believe is the
same definition as most people use. Logic I don't believe to be the math of words, logic is using reasoning and critical thinking to determine what's true and what's not.
So we're essentially arguing using two different languages.
You're speaking in colloquial terms. I can't get behind using colloquial definitions of logic in service of making derogatory accusations against others, personally - which is in essence what we're doing if we say "theism" is "illogical."
I have a lot of respect for logic and critical thinking both, and neither is well served by being manipulated to prove oneself more "logical" than another, as though an important tool should be belittled to the point of serving as a badge of honor.
I don't care whether or not one is more logical. But by definition one isn't logical, not being logical is not a bad thing necessarily, emotions aren't logical but someone who doesn't have them is a sociopath.
I suppose better phrasing would have been that I object to the notion that a person is or is not "logical." Logic is a tool, not a personal characteristic. I dislike the colloquial bastardization of the word. Perhaps I should blame Roddenberry.
Well I wouldn't pin logical or illogical as characteristics to a person, but I would pin it to certain beliefs. And you should write them about it :P
Yeah, but even beliefs aren't inherently logical or illogical. If you arrived at your conclusion in a logical manner from bad premises, there's no failure of logic. It's a failure of informational input.
We can certainly drink to that. At one point theism was the best way to explain the world. Now however we can answer many different and new questions that have arisen. Now I'm somewhat conflicted, since faith is inherently illogical but the idea of a
deity might not be.
I agree that faith is unjustified only in the sense that you've written lack of justification into the definition. Belief isn't inherently justified or unjustified, though. The really interesting discussion IMO is on the question of what we even mean
when we talk about "deity." In a very broad sense, if "deity" means nothing more than whatever is required to fill in the gaps in our current understanding, then we all believe in a "deity," automatically. Attributing features or characteristics to
that deity - including personification; "deity" could simply mean, say, the "god" particle, or some other natural process that necessarily MUST exist because WE exist and we don't know why/how - is where we get into the evidentiary weight of any
If we consider a deity to be in whatever we don't understand than it simply becomes god of the gaps which doesn't work. When I say deity I intend to mean a superior being with supernatural capabilities. I think that covers all of the gods from Greek
to Hindu, to the Monotheistic religions. It is a somewhat vague definition however.
The definition that I just used is false, however and I just realized this because it would include demons, djiins, and dragons etc. so it's too vague.
I would add "at the top of the food chain" to my previous definition. But the Greeks had titans which were equal to if not more powerful than the gods so that doesn't include them properly...
Hahaha, see, THIS is what I'm getting at. Obviously there is SOMETHING we don't understand, because, tautologically, we don't understand everything. But I find the line between "theism" and "atheism" to be treated as artificially clear. As you note,
it's really tricky to pin down a clear and comprehensive definition of "deity" that is broad enough to encompass all possible theories without also capturing what we would probably consider to be atheist theories. This is why I consider myself
ignostic. The entire conversation is really about a handful of RELIGIONS, not the overarching questions of how we got here, what "here" is, why we're here, if there's even a "why," etc. Rather than use labels that tend to divide, I prefer to have a
discussion without getting derailed by the notion that "atheism" and "theism" are binary concepts. It's a spectrum at least, and even that doesn't quite capture it because it isn't a linear spectrum.
No. We don't have any information right now, to my knowledge, that renders theism illogical.
We also don't have any evidence that there isn't a narwhal flying through space
Sure. So you can't say the possibility of a narwhal is flying around space is illogical.
It may be unlikely (we've seen enough of space to be generalizable, and never seen a narwhal floating in it), but it doesn't go against logic.
And we have no evidence you aren't a highly intelligent dog, statek. Not having irrefutable conclusive proof everyone accepts doesn't always mean much...
Exactly, it means nothing
It's just an idea, a possibility without any reason to believe or reject it aside from the illogical chance of it being true
Day 174, they may be beginning to suspect the truth of my true canine form
But it's not illogical. That's the thing. I think you're confusing unlikely with illogical.
Hahaha Statek :P
This should be fun to observe.
Is it supposed to be "do logic and theism conflict?" Or "does logic and theism conflict?"??
do is correct
Okay I thought so. It just sounds weird to me
C'mon English major
It sounds funny :(
Your face is funny
Well at least I can make people laugh somehow.
That didn't even make sense, Ed.
It makes perfect sense Kyle, Hadley makes people laugh
Please excuse Ed's behavior.
She may make people laugh, but it's not because of her face. Well, maybe some of her expressions.
Shut up E.
Do her face makes people laugh, I'm right