An infinite number of Gods exist in an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of those Gods spend their time making an infinite number of universes perfect for the existence of an infinite number of human beings.


When Richard Dawkins stated that God did not exist because God had not been observed, God was immediately observed in an adjacent parallel universe and in an infinite number of universes parallel to the infinite number of universes in which an infinite number of Richard Dawkins failed to observe God.



  1. Now here’s something I can really wrap my head around. 😉

    I’ve been lurking but that has such a nefarious feel to it; that word. I’ve visiting quietly. Yes.

  2. All of which leaves room for an infinite number of godless universes, as well as an infinite number of universes in which God never invented a Richard Dawkins.

  3. I rarely have quantum thoughts. I rarely have thoughts about quantum thoughts, either, and I think about Richard Dawkins only when you or someone else brings him up. And even then, the the Dawkins thought passes quickly.

  4. Hello, Pagan Sphinx. I was just telling a friend about you today (recommended your postings of nudes to her). Lovely to see you here.

    Multiversity rocks.

  5. Does this also mean that there is a universe where Dawkins’ brain is as big as his pretense? Interesting concept that!

    Open the box!


  6. MP,

    Not to sound like a systematician or anything, but I don’t think it usually turns out to be theologically helpful to think of God as existing “in” a universe. It seems more workable to think of God as transcending the universe; in which case you only need one God to cause as many infinities-within-infinities as your physics or imagination may require.

  7. My pretty little head is going to have to worry about this in another universe, because in this universe, I’m on holiday.

  8. Well, anon. God exists somewhere or God doesn’t exist. You can call it a universe, or a brane or whatever. Personally though, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest how big God is. I’d still love him if he was just a teenie weenie God.

  9. Oh Crikey, Mark!

    But doesn’t Richard Dawkins being a complete bag of dicks in an infinite number of universes, whilst at exactly the same time being a complete bag of dicks in an infinite number of universes undermine quantum theory completely? Boy, are the other scientists going to be cross with Richard -they’d been working really hard on that one.

  10. Yes, Boaz. Somewhere there is an infinite number of universes where God was displeased with the stuff he made and went home to play on his XBox.

  11. I think most of us have come to the conclusion that you are Jekyll and Hyde, KJ, and so occupy two different states of being in the one universe.

  12. No, Ormonde. In an infinite number of them equations and syllogisms (including this one) will work differently.

    Please pay attention at the back!

  13. Not at all.

    Dicks come in all shapes, sizes and colors – believe me – but the quality, the dickness, if you will, remains the same. The form is not the substance.

    Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, and Bob’s your uncle.

    Now, I’ve heard the brane theory mentioned in this thread, and my own theory formed during my work getting my doctorate in physics out of the Cracker Jack box, is that certain recurring forms – say, for instance Dawkins or Rowan Williams – are, in fact, entirely braneless, merely possessed of the sort of propositional existence by the ownership of pieces of paper granted by universities.