Physicist: This derivation isn’t particularly easy, but bear with me. It’s essentially a re-phrasing of a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.
Beginning with the unitarity of quantum probability you find the non-vanishing deism coefficient manifest.
The set of neononontological logical absolutes is provably finite, whereas the set of Descartian, or singly self referencing (once recursive), logical postulates is substantially larger. For example, permitting God to create an object so big that he can’t move it, while simultaneously noting that (being all powerful) he can certainly move it, is a statement contained within the Descartian set, and outside of standard (mortal) logic. By necessity, the more all encompassing logic is infinitely larger.
Indeed, using a Cantorian decomposition on the larger set one can clearly see the smaller set made apparent. That is to say, the restrictions of mortal absolutes form a fractal “Chopra surface” on the larger set in “absolutes space”.
The quasimobius structure of absolutes space is established by the most basic mathematical inference. So, once a single point in the Descartian volume has been established, then the remainder of the set follows immediately by Godelian extension. But, keep in mind that the initial premise is based on quantum unitarity (which has been mathematically and experimentally proven), and as such, the projection hypothesis holds.
The “projection hypothesis”, an inescapable result of modern quantum theory, postulates that consciousness is an integral part of the structure of the universe. Moreover, according to Alan Sokal, a PhD physics professor from New York city, “…the distinction between observer and observed; the 
of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.” (reference)
Therefore, by psuedodyadicism, the existence of any consciousness capable of comprehending an almighty or all-encompassing system, induces (technically: “projects”) a “pocket” into absolutes space, establishing an interior point, allowing for the divining of the existence of the whole of the set of Descartian absolutes. Obviously, this only strictly implies the existence of neoDescartian absolutes, but the paleoDescartian set follows immediately.
Obviously, the ratio of the q-measure of the higher postulates to the totality of absolutes space is the probability that those higher postulates hold in our universe. (This technique is common practice in most of the scientific community, but is almost unheard of in physics circles, which are mired in orthodoxy.)
But, having a higher dimensionality than the set of mortal absolutes (being circular, they have a dimension of 
Of course this only holds for our universe.
Building upon this work, we can recover a (countably) infinite set of gods.
Without loss of generality, assume a perfectly spherical god. By Banach-Tarski, with a finite number of translations a second god of equal volume can be generated. Given the isomorphism between our universe and the 2-category of cartesian clopen category categories, the axiom of choice holds.
I have a wonderful proof for the first proposition, which this comment box is too small to contain.
Gods, gods everywhere, and nothing left to think.
Wow, my life is changed forever! Thanks for this proof. Can’t wait to shove this in the face of my atheist friends!
I am most taken by the use of pseudodyadicism, and the invention of the Chopra Surface, which it necessarily implies. A great use of modal argumentation. I cannot conceive of a better use.
Of course there is a god and he wants us to know his thoughts.
haha great joke. you guys had me there for awhile
Predestination and forbearance almost contradict one another
Hi.
Uh? I do not know what to say here. Your entire post went right over my head!
I am a fervent believer in God. For me, it makes perfect evolutionary sense to believe in the Creator. Yet after reading this post, I am left dumbfounded; did you or did you not prove the existence of God?
What am I to do now?
Do I still go to church and say my Hail Mary?
Or do I only use Hail Mary when I play football?
There was something about pi in this post. Was it cherry or was it pecan? And what the hell does a pi have to do with God anyways?
Can you please rewrite this post using only words no greater than four letters so I can begin to understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks.
God bless. Or not?
Obviously!
The question of G-d moving the universe is interesting, but it begs two bigger questions of “Why would He want to?” and “To where would He move it?”
On the other hand, by some accounts, the universe is in an accelerating state of perpetual expansion, thus G-d is moving the universe in a manner of speaking, is He not?
Moreover, you can’t prove any postulate to be true; you only can prove a theory to be false if it is indeed falsifiable. Therefore, nothing can prove the existence of G-d because you cannot know infinity from a finite perspective and the G-d concept is not falsifiable. However, there is a way to demonstrate with geometry the process of intelligent design creating something from nothing; which is a contraction of the infinite to the finite as true nothingness is the infinite realm that exists beyond what is knowable. For example, the point identifies an exact location in space yet it has no dimensions and therefore has no physical existence. Consequently, if you touch a surface with the tip of a needle you are covering an infinite number of points. Yet every measurable physical structure is a conglomeration of lines connecting one zero dimensional point to another defining that which cannot be measured as the start of everything measurable. Therefore, the point is a geometric key to understanding the concept of G-d creating something from nothing.
Godel actually did formalize Anshelm’s ontological argument into modal logic. It’s a pretty neat brain-teaser.
I can’t tell whether this is a joke or not….
Nevermind, it’s a joke.
Nature is the unification of physics, ergo nature is god. The cosmos already contains 4 mystical, cosmic forces that need no help or propulsion by another force (a deity). A personal god is the creation of ancient man’s theoretical framework. Thousands of years ago when men created personal deities, they did so from ‘feelings’. Feelings proved them. But if feeling a deity proves his, hers, their, or its existence then that proves every other deity that man has proposed. Never forget or underestimate the placebo effect. We are infatuated believers because uncertainty breeds fear.
After a lifetime’s obsession I have finally managed to prove Sharkey’s Last Theorem (see first comment) using modern results from algebraic geometry. However it is very technical and weighed in at over 100 pages.
Still postulating theories about the outside from the inside. Pretty droll stuff there though.
Did no-one notice the date this was posted???
cathy, seems to me that most of the commentors got that it was a joke
I cant understand how I can get somthing from zero…. how iwill get something from nothing…. it is impossible… sother will be a creater..!
0 not eaqual to 1,2,3,……………..,a,b,c………anything….etc.
“a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.” Perhaps they talked over instant messenger? lol