Mathematical proof of the existence of God.

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 tex2html_wrap_inline1395 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 \pi) implies immediately that the ratio is 1-1.  I.e., an almighty consciousness capable of everything must necessarily exist.  QED

Of course this only holds for our universe.

This entry was posted in -- By the Physicist, April Fools. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Mathematical proof of the existence of God.

  1. Sharkey says:

    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.

  2. John says:

    Gods, gods everywhere, and nothing left to think.

  3. John says:

    Wow, my life is changed forever! Thanks for this proof. Can’t wait to shove this in the face of my atheist friends!

  4. John Wilkins says:

    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.

  5. OhMyEinstein says:

    Of course there is a god and he wants us to know his thoughts.

  6. Curtis says:

    haha great joke. you guys had me there for awhile

  7. Bo Brymer says:

    Predestination and forbearance almost contradict one another

  8. Stacey says:

    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?

  9. cpbm says:

    Obviously!

  10. Moshe Sharon says:

    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.

  11. Neal says:

    Godel actually did formalize Anshelm’s ontological argument into modal logic. It’s a pretty neat brain-teaser.

  12. That One Guy says:

    I can’t tell whether this is a joke or not….

  13. That one guy says:

    Nevermind, it’s a joke.

  14. Jesus Cruz says:

    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.

  15. xsistor says:

    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.

  16. jojo says:

    Still postulating theories about the outside from the inside. Pretty droll stuff there though.

  17. cathy says:

    Did no-one notice the date this was posted???

  18. bounce says:

    cathy, seems to me that most of the commentors got that it was a joke

  19. sharafali.a says:

    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.

  20. Ron says:

    “a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.” Perhaps they talked over instant messenger? lol

  21. Doug B. says:

    The moment you mentioned Chopra and Sakal was the moment I realized that this was just a joke. Well played, man! Well played.

  22. LouieDaBoy says:

    Our total knowledge of the universe started after the big bang and ends at the edge of the universe. Before and after that, we have null. Space and time itself as we know them start and end the same thing. Imagine our 13.5 billion light year radius finite universe is the size of a grain of sand. That sand is part of a container infinitely larger than the Sahara desert. That’s how much data we are missing in proving or disproving the existence of a Supreme Architect. Currently we only have a grain of sand to base our formula. Outside our universe, time and space do not exist. Whatever entity that is out there has no beginning or end as we know it. They could be anywhere or nowhere at the same time. We don not have the evolved mind to comprehend it. The analogy of understanding what is out there (out of our universe) does not even come close to the analogy of a born blind man trying to understand what a color yellow is. Put those into equation and you will have either an infinite number of proofs that a Supreme Creator exist or undefined. Proving something does not exist is actually harder than proving something exist. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence, and since we have a variable that could be infinite, we might as well be looking forever for evidences. Most often, people have failed to take into account the enormity of the undefined data.

  23. Consolata says:

    there is God, whether you guys agree or not

  24. You sure can not extrapolate for infinity from dah finite………jes stop being jocular and lets face dah factual fact

  25. Robby says:

    I am that I am ! ,said God Almighty

  26. The Physicist The Physicist says:

    And lo! He ate he mighty spinach.

  27. thomas says:

    i spoke with the ancestors from 100,000 years ago and they said:
    here on the African continent we have many gods, just pick the one you like and to hell with the rest!!!!

  28. Zahid says:

    In the context of Quran (the Islamic Holy Book), there is one chapter in which God says
    ” 1. Say, “He is God, the One.

    2. God, the Absolute.

    3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.

    4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.”

    This is one of the smallest chapters of the Holy Book comprising of 4 verses. I suggest all the Physicists and even Mathematicians go through the Holy Quran. Quran has wide range of topics. The topics range from creation of the life from water to the formation of universe etc. God has only mentioned His attributes in the Quran. Some other verses of the Quran:
    “190.In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, are signs for people of understanding.
    191. Those who remember God while standing, and sitting, and on their sides; and they reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth: “Our Lord, You did not create this in vain, glory to You, so protect us from the punishment of the Fire.””Chapter 3, v.190

    And many more…One reading suggested esp. for people of understanding.

  29. I can’t stand it … here’s a scientific writer of my own ilk. My bavarcations have so often been misunderstood … blank uncomprehending stares greet my most profound and well-considered speculations. And here is a writer whose linguistic legerdemain totally eclipses mine. Thanks for a cosmic ray of laughter which has illuminated my rather arduous day. I now stand absolutely convinced that mathematics have at last proven the existence of God. And can sleep easy.

  30. dave says:

    ” there may be some sort of “organizing intelligence” (but take the bible OUT of the picture) how in your rational mind, do you come to the conclusion,looking at these results, that this “entity”, is paternalistic or judgemental ? ????????how????

  31. vee cee says:

    I like the comment about all we have is a grain of sand, I think that’s almost comparable to the parable about the mustard seed, when Jesus told us that if we can only have that much faith well get by.

  32. Oci Abi says:

    I find Avicenna’s proof to be one of the most compelling arguments I’ve come across:

    Prior to the proof, attention must be given to Avicenna’s conception of modality (necessity, possibility, impossibility). Avicenna’s famous essence-existence distinction says: if you consider the essence (nature/definition of what it is) of something, i.e. a computer, the essence of your computer does not tell you that the computer must exist. You can throw your computer out of the window, and it will then cease to exist. However, it can exist, because it is working right now. This tells you that its essence is neutral with respect to existence. “It does not deserve to exist on its own merits,” but it is possible. Conversely, something like a square-circle or a triangle with 4 sides, its essence guarantees that it doesn’t exist, since simply by looking at its definition, you will see i.e. that a square-circle must be both square and round, which can not be the case. This is what Avicenna calls impossibility.

    Necessity is explained in a similar manner. The essence of something necessary is an essence/definition which guarantees that a thing exists. The point of this essence-existence distinction is to show that there is such a Being that is a necessary being, and this is what he calls God.

    Now, to explain the move from possibility to necessity: If we look at the computer again, the computer is a possible existent, which means that its essence doesn’t guarantee that it exists or doesn’t exist. The computer does, however, exist. To explain its existence we need a cause, which must be something outside of the computer. Now, those who made the computer (computer technicians) are not any better for us. We end up with a chain of causes, and each member of the chain is merely possible or contingent. The question becomes: could there be a world where everything in the world was caused by something else and that other thing was merely contingent? Avicenna’s answer is no!

    You can’t have an infinite regress of causes. Avicenna says that the entire set of contingent existents is itself contingent. One may accuse him of the fallacy of composition, i.e. when someone accepts that every part of a clock is well-designed, it does not follow that the clock is well-designed. On the other hand, it’s true that some properties carry over from parts to wholes, e.g. from the fact that every part of a clock is a physical object, it follows that the clock itself is a physical object. So it seems to follow, in the same way that from the fact that each member of the set/chain of causes is contingent, the entire set is itself contingent.

    Q:How did this set of contingent entities get there?

    Avicenna says: It [the set] is a possible existent, which means that its essence neither prejudices us in favor of its existence or non-existence. So, it needs a cause for its existence, and its cause cannot be contingent. The cause must be necessary existent, which he calls God.

    More info : http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/a/e/0/ae0c36acd9cbfef7/AdamsonMixSes.MP3?c_id=1779083&expiration=1399356739&hwt=52b5fb732742de84f6b77204c43d7144

  33. Phik says:

    Hahaha a perfect slap to the atheists who take the the support of Science to proof there is no God, now their Science is saying to them GOD IS THERE

  34. Mustafa says:

    When a person thinks “I do not perceive God with any of my 5 emotions, therefore He does not exist”, this is “direct” logic. If the person instead thinks “If I go to an empty land and see the statue of a famous person, and then I ask myself “Who made this statue”, then the answer is “An intelligent designer/engineer”. Then how come a human who is more real and more complicated than that statue comes into existance, an intelligent engineer must have designed him as well”, then this is indirect logic. And the main difference between direct and indirect logic is that direct logic always takes a person to the false whereas indirect logic always takes him to the truth.

    Whether or not we accept Him, God exists. And He does not need our faith in Him. Some people ask “Why innocent babies are being killed at wars if there is a God or people suffer?”. The answer is “Because God wanted things to happen that way, good and evil are both from Him, like the case of creation of Hell and Satan, and Heaven and angels”. Good and evil are from God, but people just can not interpret facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>