Why does the negative imply a devil? Its certainly not "obvious" to me. What this would actually give "evidence" for is an anti-god (only in his strictly mathematical construction of a god). But, the author then appeals to ancient religious texts to support his assumption. This is bogus. If you are trying to make a logical argument, you must state your assumptions then see what logically follows. What he has done here is a philosophic bate-and-switch. He comes up with a mathematical construction of a god, then switches to the Western ideal of God to further his argument. The two are not the same. In order for his argument to hold, it must not rely on religiosity. Otherwise, your argument becomes equally arbitrary to "Its true because the Bible says so".However, the divine cardinal can get negative; with the obvious interpretation of
these gods being devils. By the additivity theorem, components of positive and
negative Euler characteristics could cancel each other out. We can safely assume,
however, (and there is plenty of support from religious texts) that gods and devils
can not have stable coexistence in the same part of the universe.
But as someone who is very interested in both math and religion, I find this to be a very funny "article", whether serious or not.