Two proofs for the existence of God

[jgrafton]

1. Conjecture: nobody has sex. We will prove this inductively.

Base case: it is trivial to find some person who has not had sex, especially on this campus.
Inductive hypothesis: Assume that n persons have not had sex.
Inductive step: Now consider the n+1st person. Clearly to have sex, s/he must have it with the previous n persons, but by the IH, they have not had sex. Thus the n+1st person must not have either, and so the conjecture holds.

Clearly people still exist and continue to exist. Since there is no sex, they must have been created by some supreme being. We call this being God.

(Alternatively, one could infer that since nobody has sex, there must be no God. Hm...)


2. Consider the infamous question, "Could God create a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?" Clearly, in our sensible world, such a paradox cannot be simultaneously true. Only a supreme being could create a universe in which both halves of this paradox can be simultaneously true. We call this being God.

Comments

[x77303066.livejournal.com]

YUO AER BOROKEN!

[psifenix.livejournal.com]

GRAGH

[alanv]

Somehow, I think there's just a little *something* wrong with that proof :-P Especially the first one.
But meh, whatever.

[jgrafton]

You fool! Induction is never wrong!

[mtrdhunter.livejournal.com]

This proof breaks down in the inductive step where there's an implicit assumption that person n+1 cannot have sex with someone outside the set of n people. This assumption is false therefore the proof is false, although logically sound.

[jgrafton]

If person n+1 is considering sexual relations with a person outside the set of n, redefine the set of n to include this person.

Ha.

[twizmer.livejournal.com]

But then you've no longer inductively proved that the set of n contains only people who have never had sex. So you have to keep making assumptions.

A better solution would be to find someone who a) has not had sex and b) clearly would be the person that everyone else would want to have sex with, and use that person as a base case.

[27thletter.livejournal.com]

Many proofs of God's existence are interesting, but has anyone come up with a reasonable disproof of the existence of God? There's something to think about...

And if God exists, can God prove God's own existence?

[twizmer.livejournal.com]

Cogito ergo sum.

[brpxqzme.livejournal.com]

I've always preferred to say that "I participate therefore I am". Not quite as logical, but logic is stupid anyway.

[roseandsigil.livejournal.com]

The problem with your first proof is the assumption that people come from sex. This is false. People are actually manufactured from carefully machined parts in a people factory in Schenectady

[mr-wright.livejournal.com]

No, they come from my shirt pocket.

[jgrafton]

Your shirt pocket is also an instance of God. He comes in many forms.

[jgrafton]

Then clearly this factory is an instance of God.