The Rapture

“Let’s face facts,” Sam was saying to me. “God exists, and we have outsmarted him. We know more about the world- about physics, about ethics, about medicine, even about poetry- than God ever did. We don’t need him anymore!” When suddenly, out of the whirlwind: “Um, guys! I wrote that almost 2,000 years ago. Just think about how much I have learned since then! Listen:” And the voice of God was the voice of silence, of echoes.

Theories about Presidential Erotica

Perhaps it is time for you and I to begin a conversation about presidential erotica, on account of many of the other things we have been discussing have perhaps fallen somewhat flat as of late. Specifically, it is time for us to discuss the implications of the recently leaked autoerotica of former president Bush.


More specifically, given that it is clear (1) that the attached bodyscape (2) above, seen in context as the former president of what you might call the U.S, cannot perspectivally be in fact that of the president himself despite the implication of his hairline, this argument primarily proven by the placement of the mirror vis a vis the viewer (3), we must therefore conclude that the painter is one the same as the figure in the mirror while the figure ahead of the painter is in fact not the body of the painter himself but rather that of another man (4). This begs the question, then, of who this other man could perhaps be, to which I have no clear answer save the clear information of height and minimal number of arms (6). The very point being, of course, that what is initially seen as another inclusion into the growing catalog of political autoerotic imagery (9) is in fact implication of another instance of homophobic politicians involved in the sort of homosexual affairs we find so fascinating. All of which opens to questions about the truth, not only of the "man behind the curtain," as I chose to dub this non-Dubya figure, but likewise w/r/t the similarly leaked bath picture, as well as why, as has yet to be ascertained by so-called journalists, the president was emailing such paintings to his sister in the first place.

1. Statement utilized as colloquial for a conjecture assumed to be accepted upon its presentation, rather than any implication of a priori obviousness
2. Self-generated nomenclature, please imitate and disseminate in order to further fellate the ego of yours truly
3. Which is to say, the mirror in question is clearly facing the painter and viewer of the scene in question dead-on, as the light reflected shows cleanly the full face of President No. 43, while the figure displayed most prominently in said scene is down and to the right of said mirror, the face of said figure being both entirely too much below and likewise entirely too much to the right of said mirror to be in fact a reflection of said face of said figure
4. Gender taken as an a posteriori  assumption (5), but the assumption is open to debate
5. No puns intended in this sentence, though they are appreciated.
6. At least one at time of painting, the other assumed by Y.T. (7) to be either in the act of opening or closing curtain of assumed shower scene, assumed because the realism of the painting in question has yet to be questioned (8), yet the arm could equally be engaged in an act of onanism popular in such "bathhouse scenes" or even be nonexistent, and likewise legs are equally unknown.
7. See footnote 3
8. Which is to say, it could very well be a piece of abstract art, one in which I only subconsciously chose to perceive a shower scene between President 43 and mysterious shorter gentleman
9. Q.v. Anthony Weiner, et al.

Update: Oh shit, I just looked at the painting again and realized that Bush probably doesn’t follow the rules of Euclidean geometry. My whole theory falls apart there. Non-euclidean geometry, the dread ruler lying in the water- the message here is clear: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!

"I'm resigning due to old age," said no Pope in history ever.

 
I don’t want to say anything overtly mean about the Pope, because for one, I believe that he is a highly intelligent individual who has lived his entire life in a constant struggle to do what he feels is the morally right thing, and two, he has a pet lion. But let's be clear: there is no way Benedict XVI is resigning due to old age.

Yes, he’s old, but even at 85 he is still quite a few years from being the oldest Pope in history, and theoretically modern medicine has advanced to where our Pope is more healthy than, say, Clement X, who was born in 1590 yet still managed to be Pope into an older age than Benedict XVI. Resigning due to old age is simply not something Popes do, especially right before the busy season of Lent and Easter but also especially ever at all in the history of all Popes ever.

There are only three clear cases of Papal resignation in history, the most interesting being  Pope Benedict IX, who was elected when he was only 11 or so years old and who later decided to literally sell the papacy for some jewelry. Another of these rare Papal resigners, Celestine V, was only in office for a few months and hated it, and even after he resigned Celestine V was still then kept prisoner by the Catholic Church and probably killed. The most recent of these three cases of papal resignation happened six centuries ago- at least 77 years before Christopher Columbus first set foot upon anything resembling the Americas- and only happened because the Catholic Church was being divided between three different concurrent Popes and things were really getting quite dire.  So considering we are witnessing something that hasn’t happened since before the discovery of the printing press and only occurred because it to do otherwise could have led to the complete dissolution of the Church, mmmmaaayyybbbee we should look a little more into it than just what we’ve been told.

SUPPOSITIONS AND PROGNOSTICATIONS

If you are an employer or apartment manager and somebody known to keep secrets gives you two weeks notice and a weak reason, you might have reason to be suspicious. And yet, Benedict's resignation is coming without warning and is effective the same month he announced it. This quick leave suggests urgency to me, and I would be much quicker to suppress my suspicion were it not that this century has been a peak one for scandals in the Catholic Church. While we don’t know yet why exactly the Pope resigned, we can try to read between the lines of his resignation and attempt at a hypothesis. Perhaps, like William Burroughs claiming he could see the future through cutting up and rearranging newspaper articles, we can predict what revelations about this Pope may come out in the coming months by widening our perception of how we currently see him. 

If you read the papal resignation letter, it is one of extreme contrition. There seems to be tinges of remorse and penitence in the wording of the document, with Benedict admiting that he is resigning after “repeatedly examined my conscience before God,” and later stating that “I ask pardon for all my defects.” Yes, he is a humble man, but he is still the Pope, and like any former political leader I believe we should be suspect whenever they request something to stay out of the limelight, even if that something is themselves. The Pope no longer wants to be in the public eye, and instead requests to be allowed to walk off the national stage for “a life dedicated to prayer.” This is, I suspect, the celibate's equivalent to "wanting to spend more time with his family" and just as indicative.

His resignation could have something having to do with the leaks about widespread Vatican economic corruption and fraud, but to my knowledge Benedict was actually fighting for full transparency both in the Vatican bank and the internal investigation.  But leaks about economic corruption could lead to leaks about other vices, and even if the fraud leaks do not openly indict the Pope he may be tied to some other form of corruption. After the sex abuse scandal and the banking scandals of 1978, the secrecy and corruption of the Church is something of public record now.  And while it is true that the Pope did a huge amount of work to prevent further child abuse within the Church, he also did a huge amount to cover up the scandals and very little to punish the abusers. In effect, Benedict’s job title has been, for many years, the world’s preeminent protector of child molesters, requesting Catholics to report possible sexual abuse to the Church rather than to local authorities.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time thinking of the Pope doing anything I would consider more unethical than the things he has already done publicly, short of perhaps strangling somebody in broad daylight. He already lifted the excommunication of holocaust-deniers and strengthened the suppression of nuns and other women in the Church.  He has already stated that condoms literally aggravate the spread of AIDS in Africa- though, interestingly, he later clarified his statements to argue that condoms might be acceptable in the case of gay prostitutes. Let us not forget that we are talking about a moral compass for nearly a billion people who sees child molestation as a relative evil ("In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children") but who stated that stem cell research and somatic cell cloning were a sign that mankind "is becoming a more dangerous threat than weapons of mass destruction." We are talking about a Catholic who has called for the censure of left-wing priests in Latin America and the Indian subcontinent, calling liberation theology a “singular heresy” rooted in nothing more than “cultural imperialism.” We are talking about a political leader who said, “Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman." We are talking about a human being in the modern world condoned the trial and conviction of Galileo and who publicly equated secularism to Nazism.*

I suspect that the only thing that would have caused shame to the Pope is something others may not consider to be unethical but that the Church considers anathemic. I'm about 97.86% certain that he decided to out himself or was outed by the church before he became, so to speak, outed. To get more to the point, I hypothesize- and again, just a hypothesis- that the Pope's resignation has something to do with Georg Ganswein, personal secretary and possible lover to the Pope.

 

WAIT, POSSIBLE LOVER?

Well, that’s the rumor I'm willing to go with, at least. Before you get your mind filled with freaky “Hop on Pope” imagery, I’m not stating that this relationship was ever genitally consummated via what Benedict calls "the intrinsic evil of homosexual activity.” But the Pope and Georg are extremely close, known to take long walks and afternoon naps together. And this Georg is a very curious figure, one who would have been certain to take over much of the leadership in the Vatican if il Papa continued to reign in a state of mental decline. He is also one who has been gaining attention in the media spotlight, especially after being the cover model for the Italian version of Vanity Fair last month. We know for a fact, from the leaked documents, that senior Vatican officials are upset with the media attention paid to him. We also know for a fact that he is a very handsome gentleman who hangs out with an older man who wears ruby slippers.What we don't know for a fact yet is what this all means. But keep your eyes to either Chinese news (as the PRC would be the most likely country to have both the capacity and the audacity to smear the Papacy) or wikileaks- I am about 98% certain that it will come out somehow that this Pope is gay.

Is an outspoken homophobe being secretly gay unheard of? Only if you haven’t heard of Philip Hinkle and craigslist, George Rekers and rentboy.com, Larry Craig and taking a “wide stance” in the men’s room, or of Ted Haggard and every single thing he’s ever said or done. Only if you aren’t aware that violet capes with fur lining and rose-colored muumuus are the type of things even Popes don’t normally wear. Only if you are somehow unaware that the pope, while he owns less lions than them, is as clearly gay as Siegfried and Roy once were.

Benedict is probably not the only gay pope in history, either. Pope Julius III shared a bedroom and bed with another man, and if you really care there are rumors that “eating too much melon” was actually just a metaphor for the true cause of death of Pope Paul II. But he is the only Pope to be in office in an age of Youtube and Wikileaks, the only Pope to be called  "simply the most repressed, imploded gay in the world," and the only Pope with a “best friend” on the cover of a fashion magazine with the heading “it’s not a sin to be beautiful.” 

Less than two years ago, the Vatican was enmeshed in a gay prostitution scandal that reached as least as far as a Gentleman of His Holiness, one of the Pope’s personal attendants. Suspecting that the Pope himself was asking for these prostitutes would be asking a lot out of an 85-year-old man who, one would suspect, probably doesn’t have the world’s greatest sex drive, but we do know from Youtube that he likes to watch. 

Is there anything wrong with having a gay Pope? Not at all, or at least, nothing more wrong than having a straight Pope or any person of any sexual preference who can claim to be infallible yet who demeans women and children and gay people and people of other beliefs. But perhaps, with Ratzinger no longer the Pope, we can now expect a better, more open future for the Catholic Church, right? One free of a Nazi-trained apologist for child rapists?

Um, probably not. The safe bets for the new Pope land on a Canadian gentleman named Marc Ouelett, a biblical literalist and conservative enemy of the effects of the Second Vatican Council. You know, the one that allowed people who don’t know Latin to actually understand the teachings of the Catholic Church and encouraged people to read the Bible. So this Pope may be going away to spend the rest of his years hiding in a monastery, but fear not- the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church isn't going anywhere!

 CODA: NOW LET'S TURN TO THE CRAZY!!

Or maybe it is? Let us not forget the 3^rd secret of Fatima, one of three revelations the Church believes were given by an apparition of the Virgin to three young Portuguese girls in 1917.  While the first two are matters of public knowledge, the third was not revealed by the girls to the Church until they were ordered to in 1943, and even then the revelation was sealed and not to be opened until 1960, and even then the Church did not release this secret until the year 2000. According to the official release of this vision, it is of the Pope and other bishops being killed underneath a cross on a hilltop. Some argue that this is referring to the death of Pope John Paul I, others claim it refers to the assassination attempt of John Paul II. There are also those who suspected that this is not the full prophecy. Before its release, a theologian by the name of Joseph Ratzinger stated that the third revelation must stay secret because it spoke of "dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world." But then, after its release, the same cardinal wrote that, in the third secret, “No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled,” and that “the purpose of the vision is not to show a film of an irrevocably fixed future. Its meaning is exactly the opposite.” Why would Ratzinger have this about face?  And why would the Church put off revealing this for so long, if they even revealed the whole thing? Well, there is a theory that the prophecy as it was released has been edited, and that there is a lost page that states that the Papacy will "lose the faith and become the throne of the Antichrist." So there's that.
And hey, what about the Prophecy of the Popes, a 16^thCentury list of 112 Popes past and future that the Vatican officially claims is a forgery and inauthentic? In this document, in which each Pope has been mentioned and linked to a specific prophecy, the last Pope is the one to come after Benedict XVI. This final Pope, called Peter the Roman, will sit upon the Papal throne “in the extreme persecution of the Catholic Church” at the end of days, when “the dreadful judge will judge his people, the city of seven hills will be destroyed.” Since Peter is the last Pope, that city of seven hills probably refers to Rome, though it could also be San Francisco or Seattle or Jerusalem or any number of other cities with a fair amount of hills.

It is also worth mentioning that less than two years ago, the church’s top exorcist claimed that the devil is at home in the Holy See and that the Vatican was filled with "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon". So what does this all mean?

Probably nothing. Neither of those prophecies is anything unique, and an exorcist isn’t exactly the most trustworthy source given that his job relies upon the existence of demons and his skill set is one that has been since replaced by more effective sciences about 1,000 years ago. People have been predicting the end of the Catholic Church since the beginning of the Catholic Church, and while the Vatican will one day go the way of the Temple of Ra-Atum at Heliopolis or the Pyramids of the Nine Gods in Tikal, that day isn’t in our near future. Every year there is a new reason to hope for the end times, and every year people face some sort of great disappointment that they get to continue living on this planet.  

As a general rule, I don't believe in any prophecies until they happen. It's very easy to find connections between an event and a prediction after they happen, but even easier to find a list of prophecies that were believed and proven wrong. We can only predict the future insofar as we prognosticate that it will be unpredictable, that it will be stranger than what we imagined, and that it will contain both more of the old than we thought possible and more of the new every day than we can comprehend. I only hope, given the constant presence of ignorance and abuse of power within the Vatican, that the future of the aging Catholic Church will continue to cultivate the newness that it showed today in the the first ever resignation of a Pope due to old age.

*(“We can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society.”) 

  HEY, HERE'S A BUNCH OF LINKS!!

"Pope could be the victim of assassination plot within a year," says senior Vatican cardinal exactly one year ago, strangely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099276/The-Pope-victim-assassination-plot-year-claims-senior-Vatican-cardinal.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#axzz2KdFXwcD5

"Of course in my youth there were women who I would happily see and there were others I was even happier to see," says Pope's assistant, totally straightly: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263301/The-Popes-righthand-man-Archbishop-Georg-Ganswein-models-Italys-Vanity-Fair.html#axzz2KdFXwcD5 

Condoms are OK if you're doing it with a gay prostitute, says Pope, even straighterly: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/#.URmbL2fVpBk 

"His gayness is almost wince-inducing," says gay Catholic blogger about the Pope, intelligently and with compassion: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/08/the-pope-is-not-gay/183564/

"The U.S. State Department has put the Vatican on a list of countries of concern for money laundering or other financial crimes," says US Public News outlet, somehow ironically:  http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149614995/vatican-leaks-raise-questions-over-finances

"The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting," says British news outlet, charmingly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/vatican-gay-sex-scandal

"When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia," says exorcist in the 21st Century, somehow still making a living: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/11/vatican_exorcist/

 

Hacking the Reality Code

I've been thinking a lot lately about the possibility of the universe being a mass simulation. This is similar, though not synonymous, with the idea that I am unwittingly living in some virtual reality, either as the sole conscious inhabitant or one of many, a la The Matrix. This is also similar to the idea of Descartes' demon, where his entire idea about reality may be deceptions by a malicious entity. These are things people have thought about for as long as metaphysics have been around. What makes this worth reconsidering, however, is that I recently have become fascinated by an argument that presents the artificial nature of our reality as a question of statistical analysis rather than epistemological musings.

The name of this argument is the Simulation Argument, and it can be found here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html Essentially, the idea is that the greater capacity for creating simulations, either of an entire universe from scratch or of an immersive virtual reality world, the greater the probability that we ourselves are living as said simulation. Right now, the author argues, the probability that we are living within a computer program is roughly equal to the probability that we will wipe ourselves out before said program becomes developed.

But as the capacity to create a full virtual universe capable of internally generated artificial intelligence that is likewise capable of creating full virtual universe capable of internally generated artificial intelligence, possibly ad infinitum, equals 100%, the chance that we ourselves are part of one such artificial reality rather than in the one non-artificial generative reality likewise will equal nearly 100%.

And as for the assumption the author makes about our universe being an ancestor simulation- I personally reject that hypothesis, which is why I'm starting to think the chances are actually closer to 50-50 that we will either wipe ourselves out or are a simulated reality. The society that wrote our program may exist within a universe where technology or the laws of physics or the history of said universe or even what we consider to be consciousness itself are nothing like what they wrote into our program. We could be living in, say, a universe where a simulation was run to see what history would be like if the dinosaurs died out, or…I mean, basically anything.

In my mind, this is similar to an inverse of the argument about a monkey given an infinite amount of time writing Hamlet. It is distinct from the metaphysics of Buddhism or Descartes- it takes the existence of self as a given- but from my perspective it allows for the overthrow of our scientific axioms in a more thorough way without discarding any of the proven realities of science itself. The former two philosophies lead towards solipsism, nihilism, or a reliance on a benevolent creator. This leads more towards greater scientism.

And it can, in some ways, be tested. Physicists are currently attempting to prove if we are actually in one form of simulation (and keep in mind that we can never prove definitively that we are not), as can be seen here: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ This may prove fruitless- the premise that we can in any way predict the parameters of a possible simulation or that we can in any way differentiate between the limitations of our universe and the limitations of an artificial is arguably absurd. But still, it is to my knowledge the first legitimate scientific experiment being done in metaphysics, and as fruitless as that may be epistemologically it’s still pretty awesome.
 
This is not pointless- it's all about figuring out exactly what the universe is and what we are. But it’s also quite dangerous, as the ethical implications of a consciousness or an entire society of consciousnesses discovering that they are in fact simulations run on some sort of program could lead to either a direct intervention from the creators of that program. This could mean a communication with said creators, or equally possible a termination of our program as it may have possibly proved the entire point of our simulation.

So what does this mean for our ideas about life, reality, religion, and the afterlife? Well, for one, it proves that our notions of reality could quite easily be tweaked. We could live on a planet that was at one time programmed to have a history of, say, only 6427 years, but which was later reprogrammed to have existed for 4.5 billion years. The concept that we exist as part of a program allows the possibility of all truths within that program to not necessarily stand as true for all eternity. 

Furthermore, we have no idea how much of our history would have occurred within our universe, as the simulation in which we exist could have began with the big bang and lead up to the development of life and the creation of consciousness within that very program. However, we could also be in a simulation that began at our birth, where the entire history of everything known and unknown up to that point was part of the initial program. We could even go so far as to suspect that we are in a simulation that began as we awoke this morning, or even at this very instant. Absolutely nothing is guaranteed save the existence of our self, in some form, in this very instant, though exactly what material reality this self has is highly questionable.

The simulation we may exist within is still real- we cannot assume that we are the only thing that truly exists, as there must at least be an external force from what we consider to be our "self" creating the delusion of external reality. But reality as we know it may be more mutable than we generally accept. This may allow for the existence of so-called miracles, the evidence of which is later easily rewritten as plausibly deniable. This may allow for the existence of "gods", beings who have either learned how to hack the program codes or who are avatars of the programmers themselves.

What the idea of existence within a simulation definitely allows for is the freedom from Descartes' need of an omnibenevolent creator. As LaPlace said, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. All deities, all miracles, could easily be disguised simply as ways in which a programmer kept the program running smoothly, yet who reprogrammed things to cover its tracks. God not as a father creating out of love, but as a scientist creating to test a hypothesis. Given enough advances in technology, we could even concievably be the captive consciousnesses in a commonly available simulation program bought and run by a mischievous trickster entity, an interventionary demiurge who did not write the program from scratch but ran it in the way we might play The Sims- solely for its own personal amusement.


This is all, of course, nothing new. The only thing revolutionary about Bostrom's argument is that it speaks from probability rather than possibility. While it proves nothing, it does lay a good case that we should no longer discount the possibility of higher worlds or altered states of reality. We are conditioned to live as if we were not in a simulation, but I think it's worth wondering- what would it look like if we lived as if we were?

Great googly moogly! Godel’s Proof of God!

Some of you may have heard of St Anselm's Ontological Argument for God- God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. If God doesn't exist, it is not the greatest thing that can be conceived, and therefore by definition God must exist. This means that atheists can't talk about God, since whatever they are referring to doesn't exist and thus by definition isn't God.

Now, sure, this has a lot of problems. First of all, I can conceive of many things greater than a God who forbids the eating of bacon but commands the death of rape victims, one has arbitrary rules about eating from a tree of knowledge and arbitrary preference for the people of one part of the world to receive his message, one who can't think of a better way to solve problems than through the human sacrifice of his own son and can't find a way to convince people that this even happened when know much more clearly that Amenhotep IV, the closest thing we have on record to an inventor of monotheism, existed  over 1,300 years before the possible existence of what would have been the most important thing ever to have lived...

...sorry. Anyway, second, it is possible that existence is not a predicate for greatness. I can imagine the world's greatest dragon, but that doesn't mean that dragon actually exists. Maybe a real dragon is greater than a false one, but it's also arguable that a nonexistent dragon is even better than an existing one, since it then won't burn you and eat you and steal all your gold. Likewise, it's arguable that a nonexistent deity is even better than an existing one. After all, wouldn't an imaginary deity who still managed to create everything that exists in reality be much more impressive than one that was real? 

And finally, this all falls apart because it is based upon subjective terminology like "greatness." Our brains are limited- I can't really conceive infinity, and I can't even really conceive of a person that can. For God to be than than which nothing greater can be conceived, it would have to be not only greater than that which I can conceive personally (since there are people capable of greater thoughts than I am), but also greater than that which any human mind can conceive. Which means that God, if that's what we want to call it, is something that we can't ever talk about or even think about, since chances are that whatever we are thinking of could not possibly the greatest thing that can ever be conceived. 

So there's that. Turned your logic back on you, dead 11th-Century monk! But this is only one of the Ontological arguments, and by far not the most complex. I'd like to show you another:

Now that's what an argument for God should look like! This is the Ontological Proof of God, made by the mathematician Kurt Godel, a friend of Einstein's and a believer in...well, something. "My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza." Which basically means that he believed in a logical, personal god rather than Einstein's impersonal God, which was basically a term for the entire universe seen as a whole.

Kurt was most famous for his incompeteness theorems, which basically (and I'm talking super-basic here) stated that we can't ever know everything about anything, and that you can't ever use logic to prove you're right because logic can't prove logic is logical. These are fascinating ideas, totally worth reading about sometime- but not now! Now you are going to read about Godel's much less famous (mainly because he refused to publish it since it might have thrust him into theological debates) Ontological Proof!

What this basically says is that, given an infinite number of parallel universes, the chances of an infinitely perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being existing in at least one of them is exactly 1:1. Now, if that being is truly infinite, it must therefore exist in all universes. If not, it is not that infinitely powerful being, and given infinite universes that very infinite being must exist. Ergo, God, being that than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists.

So where does this fall apart? Well, one, an infinite number of universes is a total conjecture. That's, um, still not any more of a scientific fact than luminiferous aether or phrenology. Second, wouldn’t the possibility of a universe where an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent being DOESN’T exist also be at least 1:1? Which, I think, would mean that an omnipresent, omnipotent being by definition also CAN’T exist.

Third, the possibility of an omnimalevolent omnipresent being is just as equally 1:1, as is an omnimelancholy being or an omniinebriated being or anything else. If these beings overlap into one, that God would be just as malevolent as benevolent, true, but also just as infinitely imperfect as infinitely perfect. There could be a universe where there is an omnipresent being who is, say, infinitely impotent that would likewise have to overlap, or one who is omnipotent but infinitely ignorant. Therefore, if these beings overlap, they would, to the best of my knowledge, infinitely cancel themselves out to a state of infinite zero, which means that if an infinite number of gods exist and they all overlap infinitely into one being, this one being would nullify itself into an infinitely aexistential being, both infinitely one thing and infinitely its opposite, infinitely existing and infinitely not existing, something which has a net potential for existing as infinity but a net effect of existence of zero. 

So finally, let’s say they do not overlap- and the chances, in an infinite number of universes, of an infinite number of non-overlapping infinite beings is, I guess, at least as close to 1:1 as there being only one or any other number of other beings. So there are multiple infinite beings, meaning that the chances of one deity are equal to the chances of their being any number of other deities, onwards to infinity. So, in effect, the chances of there being one single god rather than any number of other gods are one divided by infinity, which is effectively zero but even more effectively an imaginary number. Ergo, um, yeah.