caveman caveman's cat

1. God extends our optimization scope

Definition 1. A project $p$ is said to be “a very long-term project” if, and only if, founder of $p$, i.e. dude $x$, knows that $p$ will be profitable only after $x$'s death.

Theorem 1. The probability of having person $x$ found a very long-term project is higher when person $x$ believes in a fair God, than the alternative case where $x$ doesn't.

1.1. Theorem 1's proof

IMO if a person doesn't believe in God, then —logically speaking— his brain has no reason to justify investing effort in any long-term project that will only profit after person's death. His brain will only accept investing in projects that will be profitable during his lifespan.

The only way to get your brain to accept that investing in such long-term projects is a good idea, is to have some kind of punishments/rewards system that will apply to you after your death—AKA a fair God.

There you go: on advantage of believing in a fair God is that it makes your brain accept investing in long-term projects that would benefit humanity in the long run, even though you might be alive to see that day.

The only way a Godless person can do that is by having his feelings push him to care about past his death (but not his brain). Worse, such feelings would always face resistance from the brain.

But, a Godly person would have his brain and feelings in agreement about investments in positive long-term projects that benefit humanity, because the believe in the fair God implies a fair reward even after one's death.

Note 1. Even though this column discussed God from an atheist's perspective, it does not mean that God is unreal. It just means that even an atheist should find a reason to appreciate believe in God—unless he is suicidal and doesn't care about humanity's survivability.

2. sodom and gomorrah

They mainly only had an I/O problem as they kept plugging output devices into other output devices.

But they were pretty real people, in a sense that they didn't chop their balls to make fake vags, nor that they wore pants with fake pockets, or shirts with fake zippers.

Compared to today's standards1, they were pretty conservative faggots. But, still, Figure 1 happened to them.

Sodom/Gomorrah got served
Figure 1. Sodom and Gamorrah getting their ass kicked bcoz of their persistent I/O errors.

IMO today's trash people are far worse than Sodom and Gamorrah.

nuke blast
Figure 2. …?

  • 1. As per 29th of October, 2018

3. the Dukkha routine

I propose to you the Dukkha routine — a workout routine tailored specifically for the needs of the modern man of the $21^{st}$ century.

3.1. advantages

3.2. resources needed

3.3. the routine

3.4. repetition

The repetition of each workout item in the routine should be maximum possible (to failure), given the following constraint: must not exceed 10. Ideally, aim for 5 as the max (if you have enough weight around to achieve that).

If you find yourself able to exceed 10, then add extra weights so that you end up failing no later than the 10th repetition. E.g. if you can do more than 10 pull-ups, then hold a dumbbell with your legs so that you fail by the 10th repetition.

3.5. daily nutrition

4. where does the ontological argument go wrong

The argument starts by defining God as:

Definition 2. God is a maximally great being.

This, by definition, implies that God exists, because maximal greatness implies existence. Also, “being” requires existence as far as I understand English. So, yeah, things that are defined to exist, exist. Duh.

So a better definition is:

Definition 3. God is a concept for a: $$\begin{cases} \text{maximally great being} & \text{ if existing IRL}\\ \text{fictional character} & \text{ else}\\ \end{cases}$$

Now, good luck proving God's existence using Definition 3.

Note 2. This doesn't mean that —God forbid— God doesn't exist. It just means that the ontological argument is pointless. There is still a lot of good reasons to follow God's path. IMO God's path is the best path to follow.

5. Gödel's ontological argument2

Gödel said things like this2:

Definition 4. $x$ is God-like $\iff$ $x$ only has positive properties.

Definition 5. $a$ is an essence of $x$ $\iff$, for any property $b$, $x$ has $b$ $\iff$ $b$ requires $a$.

Definition 6. $x$ exists $\iff$ every essence of $x$ is exemplified.

Axiom 1. For any property $b$, if $b$ is positive, then its negation $\lnot b$ is not positive.

Axiom 2. The property “God-like” is positive.

Axiom 3. The property “existence” is positive.

5.1. Gödel's conclusions2

Theorem 2. If a property is positive, then it is consistent.

Corollary 1. The property “God-like” is consistent.

Theorem 3. The property “God-like” is exemplified.

5.2. my attempt after Gödel's footsteps

Gödel didn't define what's positive. Some say he didn't because he felt it is subjectively/morally obvious. But I already did the work of objectively defining poisitive things, without needing the subjective/moral agreement. IMO it's easy to show what's positive by linking it to good as I did earlier3:

Definition 7. A property $b$ is positive if it's good for $x$.

Definition 8. A property $b$ is good for $x$ if helps maximizing $x$'s survivability3.

Welp… by Definition 4, Definition 7 and Definition 8, God exists by, welp, definition. Since survivability is existence — Q.E.D.

So, as you see, Gödel's path is kinda boring. The moment he defines God to be all-positive, is the moment he defines God to exist. So all that dance that Gödel did is kinda weasely IMO.


  • 2. The subset that I think I understood.
  • 3. Details is already posted in another column. Plz read that if you don't believe me; maybe it will help.