# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/121 "2012-09-07T08:17:52Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > 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 empty set is a subset of every set. Thus, for any set A, there is no member of the empty set that is not a member of A. Thus, everything that is true of the members of A is true of the members of the empty set (precisely by virtue of there not being any). This is known as a [vacuous truth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth); it’s not an axiom, but indeed a straightforward consequence of ordinary logic. Or if you don’t follow/believe me, just check wiki: [ > [@](#): > > everything is true of the elements of the empty set ]([Empty set - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set#Properties)) ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/122 "2012-09-07T10:50:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Shucks, pantheists who define _“God”_ as _“the universe”_ have long since proven the existence of the former by noting the existence of the latter. If you think about it, you would see the universe is smaller than existence, if the universe wasn’t in existence, it wouldn’t exist, nor any other universes if they exist! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/123 "2012-09-07T10:52:43Z")
Only one thing can be proven of God…God exists as a human concept. ---
**Author:** ![Oedipus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Oedipus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oedipus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/124 "2012-09-07T14:00:25Z")
Che G. could quite possibly be the greatest troll of all time. He is presenting the most inane for god’s existence and the the thread is still going 3 pages later. Am I reading him wrong or does Che actually believe in Spiderman? Or does he just believe that the logical concept of Spiderman exists. I don’t quite understand him. ---
**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 7, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/125 "2012-09-07T14:47:47Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I believe it’s technically a menage a trois. The Holy Spirit likes to watch. ---
**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 7, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/126 "2012-09-07T14:51:37Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Only one thing can be proven of God…God exists as a human concept. But doesn’t use a contraceptive. ---
**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 7, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/127 "2012-09-07T14:54:07Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > Che G. could quite possibly be the greatest troll of all time. He is presenting the most inane for god’s existence and the the thread is still going 3 pages later. > > Am I reading him wrong or does Che actually believe in Spiderman? Or does he just believe that the logical concept of Spiderman exists. I don’t quite understand him. **umkay** was real! ---
**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 7, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/128 "2012-09-07T14:57:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. I think it goes without saying, urns full of blue balls are those of gay men. I’m not sure why tautologies lead to homosexuality, but hey, it’s science… And science is fun! ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/129 "2012-09-07T15:47:27Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > The standard axiom is : An empty set contains no members and no attributes (assuming non-existence is not an attribute). Follow-up (all **emphasis** added): [Axiom of empty set](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set) > [@](#): > > In axiomatic set theory, the axiom of empty set is an axiom of Kripke–Platek set theory and the variant of general set theory that Burgess (2005) calls “ST,” and **a demonstrable truth in** Zermelo set theory and **Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory** … > > In the formal language of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, the axiom reads: > > …in words: **There is a set such that no set is a member of it.** [Wiki: Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory) > [@](#): > > Today (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics. And see the Wiki article on [Empty set](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set) to learn that the empty set is a subset of all sets. So, if no set is a member of the empty set, then the empty set cannot contain such items as red vases, I don’t think. Now, I anticipate a chorus of pleading and wailing to the effect that set theory may not precisely coincide with what is being discussed in this thread. I do not accept that argument, but rather than elaborate I would rather simply go back and rest my case on the ludicrous conclusion drawn by my interlocutors: A red vase is a duck! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/130 "2012-09-07T16:28:37Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > Che G. could quite possibly be the greatest troll of all time. He is presenting the most inane for god’s existence and the the thread is still going 3 pages later. Again, don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. And we’ve had trolls keep much more inane topics alive for much longer. ---
**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 7, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/131 "2012-09-07T21:18:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Again, don’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. And we’ve had trolls keep much more inane topics alive for much longer. > [@cmyk](#): > > **umkay** was real! …as real as trolls can be. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/132 "2012-09-07T23:18:51Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > Consider the follow-ups to be the Congo. Wait for Bolivia. > > But seriously, I have proven God exists and provided a valid argument to worship and follow him. Why do you call God “him” I wonder? Have you also proven that God has a penis? ---
**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 8, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/133 "2012-09-08T00:16:13Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Why do you call God “him” I wonder? Have you also proven that God has a penis? I hope so, otherwise Mary would’ve been… disappointed. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/134 "2012-09-08T00:19:19Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I hope so, otherwise Mary would’ve been… disappointed. No she wasn’t! Except, I just said she wasn’t, so she … was? Except you said she might’nt have been, so she might’ve. OMG, this is another Star Trek brain-melter, isn’t it? Or is it? OMG!!! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/135 "2012-09-08T01:40:32Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Why do you call God “him” I wonder? Have you also proven that God has a penis? As noted above, members of the empty set have any attribute. He not only has a penis, but a really, really tiny one. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/136 "2012-09-09T02:56:16Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > As noted above, members of the empty set have any attribute. He not only has a penis, but a really, really tiny one. Oh that’s fuckin’ funny. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/137 "2012-09-09T03:11:08Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Follow-up (all **emphasis** added): > > [Axiom of empty set](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set) > > [Wiki: Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory) > > And see the Wiki article on [Empty set](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set) to learn that the empty set is a subset of all sets. > > So, if no set is a member of the empty set, then the empty set cannot contain such items > as red vases, I don’t think. > > Now, I anticipate a chorus of pleading and wailing to the effect that set theory may not > precisely coincide with what is being discussed in this thread. I do not accept that argument, > but rather than elaborate I would rather simply go back and rest my case on the ludicrous > conclusion drawn by my interlocutors: > > A red vase is a duck! If you read your cites very carefully, you will see that they don’t say what you’re saying. And it is in fact true–every red vase on my table right now is a duck. This only seems strange because it’s impossible for a red vase to be a duck. But, since there are no red vases on my table, what is possible and impossible for actual red vases is irrelevant to what attributes can be ascribed to any red vases on my table. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/138 "2012-09-09T03:19:49Z")
If it looks like a red vase, and it quacks like a red vase… ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/139 "2012-09-15T11:10:48Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > But doesn’t use a contraceptive. I am not a Christian, but I don’t think making fun of someone’s beliefs help anyone. Mary was supposed to have conceived by a word of God not an action (as I understand it).She is quoted as saying," be it done unto me according to your word"! ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762/140 "2012-09-15T11:28:35Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I am not a Christian, but I don’t think making fun of someone’s beliefs help anyone. Mary was supposed to have conceived by a word of God not an action (as I understand it).She is quoted as saying," be it done unto me according to your word"! Hrm, that’s not an interpretation I would expect to hear from anyone not invested in the religion… “According to your word” just means “like you said.” I don’t think the biblical text supports the idea of a literal sexual act, but I also don’t think your interpretation of “according to your word” is right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-course-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it/633762.md?page=8)