Proof of Ceiling Cat

February 10, 2012 • 6:42 am

There are no convincing proofs of God, but here, thanks to reader Lauri Tormä, we have a good Cosmological Argument for Ceiling Cat. It’s based on a photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, and clearly shows the figure of Ceiling Cat punching out the lights of a teddy bear.

Ad astra per aspera!  (For more proofs of Ceiling Cat, go here).

44 thoughts on “Proof of Ceiling Cat

    1. No, it is ceiling cat protecting children from pedobear, thus showing active action against evil, unlike other deities.

      1. That’s Mickle Toad! See ye not the wens? Ken ye not the warts?

        Repent! Repent or ere the Milky Exudate be secreted on thee, Apostate Amphibiaphile! (Obviously the “Milky Way” is actually the skin secretion of Mickle Toad. Ha! Got you there! Explain the Milkyway otherhow. Ha!)

        Oh, and there is no goD but Mickle Toad and Hypno-Toad is His Prophet. [Hypno-Toad is a sort of Rasputinate grenouille, non? And big enough to be concealing a quahog under there, too….]

          1. 🙂

            (I wasn’t certain whether I was channeling Chaucer, Burns, or John Cleese as a Welshman there….)

            You know how they have “colorized” old movies? Well, I just want to say that when they get around to re-doing Holy Grail in 3D and Sensaround, you don’t want to be sitting in the front row when they get to the “Tim the Sorcerer” scene….

            1. Hmmm, this sure looks like “disrespect” to the Divine Frog and therefore a violation of my rights.

              If you keep this up, you shall receive no ponds of stagnant water with swarms of insects in the life to come.

  1. It’s a damn sight more convincing than any of the asterisms in the sky that are supposed to resemble something or other.

    1. Yes, …. But, ahem, … I know they are pareidolia, yet…. Yes, yes, I confess, in those paintings of Jesus, I DO see gas clouds. Really. If you just turn the painting slightly…like this, see…and…squint a bit…there, in Jesus’ beard, don’t you see a nebula?

      And those photos of Elvis; I KNOW they are Elvis, and yet…I see an image of a hill on Mars. There, a transverse valley, and look…I know its the side of his face, yet the shadow along his jaw–couldn’t it be a slope on the lee side of sunrise or sunset on Mars?….

  2. Wow! Just wow! And to top it off I saw the image of Ceiling Cat on my toast this morning! The conversion was immediate. I hereby renounce my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and swear my allegiance to the One True Cat.

    1. Yes, yes! I made linguine in tomato sauce for my daughter the other day, and it looked just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (minus the meatballs)!

      Explain that, Skeptics!

  3. Will we EVER be rid of this hideous plague of blogs posting idiotic examples of astronomical pareidolia?

    I don’t give a flying fish what it looks LIKE. I see a magnificent dusty protostellar nebula – a cloud perhaps a few light-years across – condensing under its self-gravitation and with its surface undergoing severe photoevaporative erosion from some energetic light source (undoubtedly a young cluster of massive stars) outside the field of view…and there’s lot’s more to this story.

    The Real Thing: yes, it’s infinitely more satisfying than seeing cats or teddy bears or whatever else dull imaginations see that isn’t actually there.

    One might think it innocent fun to play with and use as an illustration of how to mock those who see all kinds of goofy things in places and random patterns, but the trouble is that as soon as the pareidolia game is launched, it becomes a nearly-perfect distraction and stops people – from students to distinguished scientiust bloggers – from thinking OUTSIDE of their personal experience in order to arrive at a better conceptual model of reality. Like the childhood pastime of gazing up at clouds in the sky to see what the shapes remind them of – astronomical imagery (portraying nebulae, especially) is a favorite source for the game.

    The effect is insidious: like a person who cannot rid herself of an infection by an “earworm” (say, something like “It’s A Small World After All”) every time somebody suggests what an astronomical object looks like, one cannot avoid seeing it there, even with a supreme effort of will, every time one comes across the image. It’s one thing to play the game with magnified biological subjects. After all, how many times does one refer to the SAME image, say, of some particular tissue, over the course of many years? It’s quite another with astronomical subjects: we’re compelled to study an environment so vast the subjects in it barely change over the course of many generations. Even though we take new pictures of them, they don’t alter their poses for long periods of time.

    The pareidolia game isn’t so innocent when one is trying to educate the public or young people. It’s a horrible interference to understanding.

    1. There’s one of these in every crowd, isn’t there? What a pompous and humorless post! Anchor, I suggest you go elsewhere if you don’t like this stuff. And this isn’t a “blog,” anyway.

      And thanks for the accusation that I’m interfering with people’s understanding of the cosmos.

    2. “Infinitely more satisfying”? Will we ever be rid of this hideous plague of non-mathematicians idiotically misusing words like “infinite”? It’s a horrible interference to understanding.

    3. Wait… is there a corollary to Poe’s Law that applies here? Something about how on the Internet it is impossible to tell satire from honest commentary from the humorless?

    4. Dude. Step away from teh Sugar Bowl. That stuffz rots ur teef like no1’s buziness.

      Iz joke. For realz. Peoples getz dat. Iz joke.

  4. Wow, let’s whip up some theology around this!

    This positive vision of the lordly power of Ceiling Cat (praise be to his name) provides an expanded understanding of the powerful evidence for continuing expression of his powerful and remdeeming influence on the lives of all kittehs who are true in their faith with CC (pbthn).

    QED: Ceiling Cat exists!

    1. Yes! I just saw that a couple of hours ago and was freaking out. He seems to have conducted the studies thoroughly and found a valid conclusion. Maybe JC will do a post on it…

      1. Actually, I’ve got a short one already prepared, and will post it tomorrow. It’s a really good article, well written and full of interesting science.

Leave a Reply