My two favorites come from the debate over Bishop Berkeley's philosophy. He "proved" the existence of God with an argument along roughly the following lines. Events cannot exist without an observer (If a tree falls in forest ...). However, the universe is somewhat predictable; if I look away from some object, then look back, it will probably still be there. So there must be a universal observer to provide the consistency. Hence God.
I've been told the two limericks were published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a notion I find enchanting, but I'm not sure that's true. Web search turned them up in a biography of Berkeley:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/The version they give is:
There was a young man who said God,
must find it exceedingly odd
when he finds that the tree
continues to be
when no one's about in the Quad.
The version I remember from my university days was:
A Cambridge student said God,
must think it exceedingly odd
to find that a tree
just ceases to be
when no one's about in the Quad.
The two versions have the same response:
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd
I'm always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
continues to be
Since observed by, yours faithfully, God
I rather liked Berkeley; his philosophy (or
at least the summary I got) struck me as
quirky, amusing, ...
Probably the best paper I wrote in unversity
stated from Berkeley. If the event cannot
exist without an observer, what about the
reverse? Can God exist without a universe?
In the beginning was the One. And He could
not cope with sensory deprivation, so He
started hallucinating. And it was Good.
This gets you pretty close to Lord Shiva
in his Nataraja form, creating everything
through dance.
Some writers oversimplify and call Shiva
the Lord of Destruction. He's closer to
Lord of Change. One of the upper hands
on a Nataraja statue has fire for
destruction; the other has a drum for
rythm, creation.
In the Beginning was the Beat?