Existence of God
“If God doesn't have a girlfriend or wife, does He need to create a wormhole to have sex?”
“God is mortally wounded”
“It is self-evident that this God character has a God complex. I would advise Him to seek counselling at the earliest possible opportunity.”
Does God exist? If you have a life then you probably don’t give a rat's ass. However, if you’re bored as hell, then you might want to contemplate this question that will never be answered.
Overly Long Section Concerning the Definition of God[edit | edit source]
To approach the existence of God it is important to understand the meaning of the word “God”. The great dead philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein spoke on this matter. He said, “God spelled backwards is Dog. One would then assume that God is a dog. However I don’t believe that is the case. Why isn’t God a dog? Because dogs don’t really exist. If God was going to be an animal, he would probably be a cat. Why? Because cats kick ass. Did Egyptians ever worship dogs? No. They worshiped cats. The Norasii worshiped dogs. Who are the Norasii? Exactly. Wikipedia doesn’t even have an article on the Norasii. Wikipedia most definitely has an article on Egypt. Egyptians built the pyramids and the Sphinx and enslaved the Jews! The Norasii didn’t do shit. They just sat around worshiping dogs and not getting articles written about them. Dogs shit on carpets and drool and do what you tell them to do like the little bitches they are. Cats on the other hand are calm and collective and do useful things like lying around and soaking in the sun’s energy while quietly planning to take over the world. God most definitely stands for ‘cat’”.
Another widely accepted theory of god's creation is, A man by the name of Chad Rucker that lives in Richmond Kentuckistan took a massive shit, and then there was god.
However, despite Wittgenstein’s attempts to define God, his strange rant comparing canines to felines drew much criticism mainly due to the undeniable fact that a dog could totally kick a cat’s ass. Therefore, a grand council was held to discuss the definition of God. The council was made up of philosophers, theologians, psychologists, gynecologists, astronomers, and mimes. The meeting was held in Kaliningrad for the sake of Immanuel Kant who didn’t want to leave his hometown. The meeting began with Kant being called forward to speak. After much stifled giggling, (his name sounds a lot like “cunt”) Immanuel spoke in great and confusing detail about human knowledge, the source of transcendental ideas, and a bunch of other crap the caused David Hume to become so frustrated that he killed a mime with a fork.
Everyone ultimately decided to dismiss Kant’s ideas and settle on the fact that God was an old man that looked similar to father time, lived in the clouds, and spoke with an electronically enhanced voice. This seemed to make most people happy until Stanley Milgram decided to deliver electrical shocks to the mimes until they died, which caused everyone to be happy.
.jpg)
Proof of God’s Existence[edit | edit source]
Once everyone was agreed on what God was, people who had nothing better to do decided to prove that He (note the masculinity) existed. Some people, mainly Christians, decided to do prove God’s existence illogically (referencing The Bible), while other people, mainly Christians, decided to prove God’s existence logically (referencing themselves). One of these good Christian men (note that the masculinity) was St. Anslem who almost successfully proved God’s existence through his Ontological Argument which is shown below.
Anslem’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
- Think of the greatest thing you can think of.
- Now think of something even greater.
- Now think of something even greater than that.
- Now think of something a little bit greater than the last great thing you thought.
- Right now you should be thinking about God, if you’re thinking about Mt. Everest go back to 1 and try again. If you’re thinking about Oprah shoot yourself in the head. If you’re thinking about a hot dog stand then stop fucking around because this is serious.
- The greatest thing in the universe would have to be everything in the universe according to the equation E=mc² where E stands for everything and mc² stands for the greatest thing in the universe.
- Since the greatest thing is the universe is everything and God is the greatest thing in the universe, God is everything, even food.
- You eat food, and since you are what you eat, you are God.
- If you’ve made it this far on the Ontological Proof you are probably thinking. Therefore you probably exist.
- Since you exist, and you are God, God exists (until you die and then God will be dead).
St. Thomas Aquinas rejected St. Anselm’s argument and instead embraced his own argument mainly because he was an egotistical bastard. St. Thomas Aquinas’s proof that God exists is shown below.
If God doesn’t exist…
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then who was the first thing to make something happen?
- Then why does everything work?
- Then who made everything?
- And on a related note… How could have we come from monkeys if there are still monkeys around? Or are we just monkeying around?
However most philosophers and smart dudes (note the masculinity), reject the aforementioned proofs because, as Oscar Wilde put it, “the proofs are mystic, unrealistic, altruistic, dualistic, propagandistic, pantheistic and anachronistic”.
The Paradox Of Good.[edit | edit source]
As philanthropists have pointed-out to cult religious leaders time and time again, the greatest contradiction to the postulate of a monotheistic God is the existence of Good.
It is self-evident that good exists. Occasionally, people are destined to do good things to others. Some parts of this universe are a good design, from which life-forms benefit. Thus, not all of this universe we inhabit is definable as the creation of God. This is a contradiction, since God is supposed to be the creator of all that exists.
From reading the Old Temperance, there is little doubt that God was a total badass at that time in history. Not only that, it is obvious that He really, really enjoyed doing all those nasty things to people. One can just imagine Him sniggering with glee as He issues the instruction to Abraham to exterminate the Canaanites, for example. The kind of world-picture we are presented with for this bygone age is a straightforward and reassuring one; that God is just as bad as we are. If not actually worse, assuming that is possible. We, evil beings, it seemed, lived in an evil uninverse created by an evil God, in which we were all hunky-dory so long as we did his evil bidding. And, then some.
Yet, it is intuitively the case that a God of Absolute Evil such as the one portrayed by the Old Temperance would not allow Good to exist, once its existence had come to his attention. Which would happen immediately, since He is postulated to be all-powerful and all-seeing. The moment any Good was seen to emerge in his Realm, He would act to deal with this departure from His own basic nature. The fact that this observedly does not happen (well, mostly it does, but not always) leads us to one of two conclusions:
- That God is Omnipotent, but not pure Evil.
- That God is pure Evil, but He is not Omnipotent.
Accepting either of these conclusions defines God as being non-absolute. In which case -as Teal'c would be quick to point out- He is Not a God.
It is self-evident that a badass God would not permit Good to exist. That would be a violation of His basic nature. Yet, this leaves us with the perplexing question of who created good, if God did not? After all, if God created Good, then God cannot be the essence of Evil. Therefore, in this case, God cannot exist. Either that, or someone else sneakily created Good, just for the hell of it. His Son, maybe, just to be rebellious? Who knows.
If that was the case, then oh boy, look what happened to His Son whilst paying us a social-visit.. On the basis of that, I would advise anyone against acting contrary to God's instructions. If he would do that to His own Son, of all people, then... Yeah. Watch out. It is for good reasons that the Kabbalists never write God's name in full, instead using the acronym YHBW.
Proof of God’s Nonexistence[edit | edit source]
God’s existence has been tested on a number of occasions. In 1993, Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem. The theorem had never been proven all though it had been hanging around annoying the fuck out of mathematicians for about 357 years. After Andrew Wiles proved Fermat’s Last Theorem, he proceeded to walk to the nearest local Baptist Church, stroll up to the pulpit, and proclaim “where’s your God now bitches?! I just proved Fermat’s Last Theorem! Can your God prove that no nontrivial solutions in integers exist for the equation: if is greater than two? I don’t think so. You know why? Because I did it. God didn’t do shit. What was God doing the last 357 years? Not proving Fermat’s Last Theorem, that’s what he was doing. It only took me seven years! Wow, God couldn’t prove it even though he got a 350 year head start. Well, since I’ve already shown that I’m obviously superior to God, I think I’ll stop here.” Similar tests include the invention of Benham’s Top and the existence of Bruce Lee.
Also, God cannot make a Thai dish so spicy that He Himself could not eat it.
Other Shit[edit | edit source]
Epistemology[edit | edit source]
Epistemology is sort of like studying magic without the luxury of playing Quidditch during your spare time. Epistemologists try to prove God exists by casting two types of spells called a posteriori and a priori. No one really knows the difference between these two spells. However, one of the spells usually ends up describing beliefs while the other one leads to methodology (another form of wizardry that has an extremely boring name and therefore requires that we ignore it completely).
Identifying Attributes[edit | edit source]
Suppoose you encountered God, would you recognise Him? Here are a few pointers:
Glowing eyes. It is established that God's eyes will invariably glow if you get him sufficiently annoyed at you. As Godliness-tests go, however, this is not a preferred method from a health-and-safety point of view. You may only get to do this once, and may not be able to report-back on the results of the test.
Speaking in a 'phlanged' voice. Although widely reported, it is apparently the case that God only does this for effect. He does not have to speak like that. Therefore, this is not a reliable indicator of Godliness.
The Theory That God Is Actually A Goddess[edit | edit source]
God is always identified by way of His trademark beard, which is of truly impressive proportions. This, incidentally, tends to rule-out any possibility of God being 'sHe' - Unless of course, the beard happens to be one of those stick-on ones which female Pharaohs such as Nebuchadnezzari the 43rd wore.
Yeah right. Get in the kitchen and fix me a sammich.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
God might exist or He might not exist if you are an agnostic. If you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew then He (note the masculinity) does exist. If you are an atheist, He (again note the masculinity) does not exist. And if you are me, then you’re sexist.