# Of course God exists--And I can prove it. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762 "2012-09-05T17:26:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/101 "2012-09-06T12:29:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, it is and it isn’t. Schrodinger? Izzat you? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/102 "2012-09-06T12:49:16Z")
Even God thinks this argument is lame, and He’s fucking God. I know this, because X is Y, and X is not Y, therefore you masterbate a lot. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/103 "2012-09-06T12:52:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Schrodinger? Izzat you? Hey, what up Heisenberg! ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/104 "2012-09-06T13:26:57Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > So I can clearly not choose the unicorn in front of me. The people in my cubical are wondering why I keep snickering. I did manage to not spray coffee on my keyboard, so you don’t owe me a new one. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/105 "2012-09-06T13:45:57Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > . . . and He’s fucking God. Wait, who’s fucking God? I hope God remembers what happened _last_ time He knocked someone up. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/106 "2012-09-06T15:00:14Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > Wait, who’s fucking God? I hope God remembers what happened _last_ time He knocked someone up. God is fucking God. Perks of being omnipresent. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/107 "2012-09-06T15:14:50Z")
(post #80) > [@Trinopus](#): > > (It’s also fun to note that any property may be attributed to members of the empty set. Since there are no unicorns…all unicorns are lesbians.) (post #81) > [@colonial](#): > > What’s so fun about it? (post #89) > [@Trinopus](#): > > Logic is lots of fun. It can be made into a game (“Wff ‘n’ Proof”) or a puzzle. It can solve problems. It can cause problems! And, as Lewis Carroll delighted in, it can be the basis for wonderful and witty forms of “nonsense.” > > You might as well ask what’s so fun about learning? I was not questioning the pleasure and utility of standard logic. I was implicitly ridiculing the notion that the substandard axiom “any property may be attributed to members of the empty set” could possess any utility, and I was explicitly ridiculing the notion that the syllogism: (Premise) “there are no unicorns” (Conclusion) “all unicorns are lesbians” could be fun. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/108 "2012-09-06T16:11:53Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > God is fucking God. Perks of being omnipresent. I believe it’s technically a menage a trois. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/109 "2012-09-06T16:51:59Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > Wait, who’s fucking God? I hope God remembers what happened _last_ time He knocked someone up. 2,000 years and we’re still talking about His one night stand. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/110 "2012-09-06T17:14:50Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Not to attempt to substitute my judgement for yours, but I didn’t read that as an accusation of anyone in particular – to me it read as a logical consequence of the logic displayed in the OP. this. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/111 "2012-09-06T17:16:12Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > (post #80) > > (post #81) > > (post #89) > > I was not questioning the pleasure and utility of standard logic. > > I was implicitly ridiculing the notion that the substandard axiom > “any property may be attributed to members of the empty set” > could possess any utility, and I was explicitly ridiculing the notion > that the syllogism: > (Premise) “there are no unicorns” > (Conclusion) “all unicorns are lesbians” > could be fun. As for the second point, it is tautologously true that any legitimate opportunity to utter the phrase “all unicorns are lesbians” is fun, so I don’t know what else to tell you. As to the first point, it’s not an axiom, it’s a consequence of the rules of inference. Here’s an intuitive way to grasp why the members of an empty set can correctly be said to have any attribute you might care to name (assuming existence isn’t an attribute of course!). If there are no vases on the table, and I tell you to grab all the red vases from the table and bring them to me, and you bring me no vases, have you failed to do as I asked? Of course not–you’ve succeeded in doing it. I asked you to bring me all the vases on the table–and you brought all of them to me by bringing me zero of them. So, you fulfilled my request to bring me all the red vases by bringing me _all_ the vases. (That’s zero vases.) Hence, all the vases on the table are red. Replace “red” with anything you like and the argument still goes through. Hence, every member of the empty set “vases on the table” has any attribute you care to name. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/112 "2012-09-06T17:22:01Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > No relation without relata. > > It is self-defeating to say that something does not exist. ”God does not exist” is about God. A statement can be about something only if that something exists. No relation without relata. Therefore, God exists. > > This proof works for Thor, too. > > Thanks Parmenides. Or perhaps [Saint Anselm.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/113 "2012-09-06T20:19:47Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > As for the second point, it is tautologously true that any legitimate opportunity to utter the phrase “all unicorns are lesbians” is fun, so I don’t know what else to tell you. . . . Thank’ee! I was going to answer, but you beat me to it…and better. Bawdy examples in logic are lots of fun. A lot of us would have paid closer attention in school if they’d used lesbian unicorns instead of urns full of blue balls. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/114 "2012-09-06T20:28:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Or perhaps [Saint Anselm.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument) The Ontological argument is very different from the OP’s. (And is much more difficult to answer.) ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/115 "2012-09-06T20:32:37Z")
This statement is false. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/116 "2012-09-06T21:27:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The Ontological argument is very different from the OP’s. (And is much more difficult to answer.) I dunno, a sigh and a call of “bullshit” is all the effort _I’ve_ ever needed. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/117 "2012-09-06T21:45:00Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > As for the second point, it is tautologously true that any legitimate opportunity to utter the phrase “all unicorns are lesbians” is fun, so I don’t know what else to tell you. It is a matter of personal taste. For people whose tastes have not advanced past Junior HS level it might be fun. > [@Frylock](#): > > As to the first point, it’s not an axiom, it’s a consequence of the rules of inference. No, it is not a consequence of the rules of inference. It is an axiom forming the basis of a class of preposterous inferences. The standard axiom is : An empty set contains no members and no attributes (assuming non-existence is not an attribute). > [@Frylock](#): > > Here’s an intuitive way to grasp why the members of an empty set can correctly be said to have any attribute you might care to name (assuming existence isn’t an attribute of course!) (emphasis added). If there are no vases on the table, and I tell you to grab all the red vases from the table and bring them to me, and you bring me no vases, have you failed to do as I asked? Of course not–you’ve succeeded in doing it. It would make more sense to begin with the premise that since the set of vases on the table is empty then the request to grab a vase (color is immaterial) from the table is impossible to fulfill. To put in another way it is impossible to “succeed” in fulfilling the request. No need for our purposes to discuss whether inability to fulfill an impossible request constitutes a form of “failure”. > [@Frylock](#): > > I asked you to bring me all the vases on the table \ and you brought all of them to me by bringing me zero of them. So, you fulfilled my request to bring me all the red vases by bringing me all the vases. (That’s zero vases.) Hence, all the vases on the table are red. Replace “red” with anything you like and the argument still goes through. > > Hence, every member of the empty set “vases on the table” has any attribute you care to name. If you want to live with such inferences from your axiom as “all is equivalent to zero” and “red vases are zero vases” then I guess no one can stop you, although I wish your parents and teachers had stopped you back before the effects of not cleaning your bong screen got really out of hand. I will close this post by taking the inference from your axiom ‘the empty set “vases on the table” has any attribute you care to name’ at face value, and performing a _reductio ad absurditum_: You say there are no vases on the table? Ah, but there IS on the table something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and possesses every other attribute we can imagine a duck having. Finally, this duck-like entity is uniformly brown in color. Allow me to attach a label to it bearing the words “red vase”. According to your axiom it IS a red vase, and you shouldn’t get too upset if after I bring it to you, in successful fulfillment of your request, it shits in your lap. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/118 "2012-09-07T00:08:39Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The standard axiom is : An empty set contains no members and no attributes > (assuming non-existence is not an attribute). I wonder where you’re getting this information from. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/119 "2012-09-07T01:07:42Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > 2,000 years and we’re still talking about His one night stand. And did she yell out “oh God!”? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/120 "2012-09-07T03:56:00Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > . . . The standard axiom is : An empty set contains no members and no attributes . . . > [@Frylock](#): > > I wonder where you’re getting this information from. Me too! That sure isn’t how it’s taught in either math classes or philosophy classes! The way it’s actually taught is that members of the empty set (which, of course, there aren’t any!) have any attribute you care to assert. Unicorns are lesbians. Even prime numbers greater than two are also divisible by three. etc. One could, I suppose, create a completely new system of logic, in which members of the empty set are defined as having no attributes at all. (Just as a new system of logic could be created in which universal statements imply the existence of at least one instance, which isn’t how it’s done today. Today, I can say “All unicorns are lesbians,” and then duck responsibility by noting there aren’t any unicorns. Under this new, variant logic, I couldn’t say it, because the statement “All unicorns are lesbians” implies that there actually is at least one lesbian unicorn out there, somewhere. It could work. It could be entirely self-consistent. It just isn’t how real logicians do it in our world!) Anyway, logic is fun, and I feel rather sorry for anyone who doesn’t get it! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=7)