h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm pretty sure he's got that one backwards. In times when belief in God was prevalent, people looked back to The Philosopher (Aristotle), and a series of equivalent authorities. Innovation was a dirty word. Study meant the practice of scholasticism: reconciling opposing views from authorities to find a comfortable middle ground.

Now that nothing is sacred, anything may be criticised. New students aspire to knock the authorities from their pedestal. Originality is greatly prized.

>who end up going round in circles (like water draining out of a bath)<


mikey's 'aving a larf.....I reckon. Must be.

Try this bath glug glug, mikey. Gawd inspired men to write the bib to make christians. How do we know Gawd did this? Because chrisses say so.

'Nah! Nietzsche killed 'im.'


but I read in a book once that hit were the Jews what killed 'im.

By the way, I've just managed to prove I'm God, if anyone's interested.

Gif

I'll set Nietzsche on you!

that's nothing, I'm calling Christian Voice, just wait!!

Neitzche is dead.

Gif

So I has thinking:

(1) Premise: It is possible for gods to exist.

(2) Premise: There exist infinite universes.

(3) Premise: In infinite universes, anything possible will happen an infinite number of times.

(4) Premise: There is no limit to the forms God can take.

(5) All possible gods exist in some universe (from 1, 2 and 3).

(6) It is possible for God to take the form of me (from 4).

(7) God exists in the form of me (from 5 and 6).

(8) I am God (from 7).

Gif

And, of course,

(9) The above logic applies equally to all people.

(10) I'm God, and so's my wife (from 9 and 10).

Gif

Frankly, I'm not convinced. Premise (3) looks fishy to me.

Oh, I assure you it's accurate.

And as a morally perfect being, I am of course incapable of lying.

Gif

Actually, I suspect the argument falls down on premise 1, depending on the definition of 'gods'.

and of 'to exist'.


and maybe even of 'possible'.

well, although I totally disagree with premise 1, that isn;t where the logic fails.
It fails on steps~:
(6) It is possible for God to take the form of me (from 4).
(7) God exists in the form of me (from 5 and 6).
(8) I am God (from 7).

In order to establish (8) you need to establish that god can exist *as* you, not merely *in the form of* you.

Alternatively, using just what you have given, (8) should be 'there exists a 'me' who is God.

Pah, see how the foolish atheist quibble over semantics, when they know in their hearts that I exist!

"there exists a 'me' who is God." - yes, and that's me!

(Ooh, this solipsism thing is fun. I can quite see the attraction.)

Gif

Or should that be 'this sophistry thing'?



Gif

"yes, and that's me! "

Prove it (you're logic above does not prove that the 'you' who is corresponding with me is the same 'you' that is god.

you're/your

Well, no, *probably* not this me in this universe, unfortunately.

But some me in some universe somewhere.

Gif

what about what the guide in the book says about there being no life in the universe and anything looking like it is just a figment of imagineation

therefore you do not exist

there is no god

end of

I knew that we'd get 's theory eventually, whether or not we took the bait.

Yeah...surely premise 3) *is* dodgy? Assuming an infinite number of universes, there is a finite probability in each that (and/or Mrs ) is god. Therefore across the multiverse as a whole, the probability that is god *tends towards* 1.

So the best we can say is that is probably god but might not be.