A version of the following disproof entitled The Biblical God Concept - Nullified has been published in The Freethinker which is the online magazine of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India:

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that utilizes reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, even supposing that a free desire to be worshiped could be moral, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this presentation. It is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey more than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory. It is meant to convey that, as our ability to know an external reality (if one exists) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature, meaningful development (true personal satisfaction) for us may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

Therefore, in that these all involve goodness of motive, more significantly than that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory, this presentation is meant to convey that meaningful development must accommodate the personal conscience.

As the personal conscience assesses the appropriateness of subscription to the Biblical god concept it encounters the following: ‘Loving beings are characterized by selflessness, not egotism. They do not wish to be worshiped, narcissistic ones do. They wish to inspire others to be as good even better than they, not render them prostrate. There may be no double standards in the definition of love.’

Accordingly, fully informed and free subscription to the Biblical god concept is unconscionable. Consequently, it is incongruous with meaningful development even apart from the self-contradictory nature of the of the Biblical god concept.

Resultantly, in the interest of intellectual and emotional maturation, subscription to the Biblical god concept should be held repudiated not only in that it involves a self-contradictory notion but, more insistently, in that it cannot in full knowledge and goodness of motive be freely enacted.

John Jubinsky
MA-Mathematics, CPA

Tags: Disproof, God, Jubinsky

Views: 34

Replies to This Discussion

John, I wish I could say that everything written here makes sense to me, but it doesn't. I don't read or speak "philosophy" very well. Please tell me if I have distilled and understood the main points. 

Love means:

selflessness, not egotism;

does not seek worship, narcissists do;

seeks to inspire others, not prostrate them;

love has no double standard. 

Accordingly, fully informed and free subscription to the Biblical god concept is unconscionable.

Consequently, it is incongruous with meaningful development even apart from the self-contradictory nature of the Biblical god concept.

Result:

subscription to the Biblical god concept should be held repudiated not only in that

1. it involves a self-contradictory notion

2. it cannot in full knowledge and goodness of motive be freely enacted.

 

 

Hi Joan!

 

The first thing that the disproof does is demonstrate that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory on its face. Remember that the concept is one of a being perfect in goodness that demands  to be worshiped. The disproof begins by demonstrating that a being supposedly perfect in goodness that demands to be worshiped cannot exist in reality because those two qualities contradict each other. It uses Descartes' time tested definition of a being to do this. Remember that Descartes said: 'I think therefore I am but how do I know any of my perceptions are valid?' That is, very strictly speaking, it is impossible for us as mere perceivers to know whether any of our perceptions are anything more than part of a dream world that it is our nature to live in. As such, if someone (such as a Biblical type god) comes along and demands that we acknowledge absolutely his existence (in the form of demanding to be worshiped or any other) he is demanding that we do the impossible. Of course demanding that others do the impossible amounts to behaving in a manner that is less than good. However, at the same time a Biblical type god is supposed to be perfect in goodness. Therefore, the concept of a Biblical type god necessitates the self-contradictory notion of a being perfect in goodness behaving in a manner that is less than good. Consequently, the very definition of a Biblical type god is self-contradictory and, as such, a Biblical type god cannot exist in reality.

 

The disproof further argues that, because we as mere perceivers cannot know whether our perceptions validly reflect any external reality that there might be, we cannot achieve true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) through our interpretations of them. Accordingly it argues that, as such, true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) can only be achieved through the internally verifiable degree of effort that we make in attempting to accomplish our objectives. From this it continues that because true personal satisfaction in effort is possible only in good motive true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) must be subject to the personal conscience.

 

Finally, it proposes that, because love is founded in selflessness and the desire to inspire others rather than egotism and the desire to hold them prostrate, independently from our perceiver nature, the demand to be worshiped is unconscionable. Then using that true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) cannot be separated from the personal conscience, it concludes that, in the interest of true personal satisfaction, the perception of anyone making the unconscionable demand to be worshiped must be held repudiated. In this any supposed Biblical god must be held repudiated whether its characteristics are otherwise self-contradictory or not.

John, thanks for the rewording for me. You make sense. 

1. A perfect god as defined in the bible contradicts with a god that demands worship.

2. We, as human beings, have imperfect perception, therefore need reason and personal conscience. 

3. Love from obligation is unconscionable and worthy of being repudiated. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service