For Your Consideration, Use or Comment: A Logical Disproof of the Biblical God Concept

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: 14

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you. Well written.

If this argument assumes that a biblical type God does exist then it also must assume that biblical events are true as well, otherwise why should we assume that the God exists yet not the events and people that recorded them and him?

God, in the Bible, showed himself physically to many people and performed miracles to prove his abilities. Jesus also performed miracles to prove that he was divine. If we are assuming that all this is true then we must assume that the witnesses had sufficient evidence to believe it and acted accordingly.

We, however, do not so we should not nor be expected to. Of course, if either one or the other showed their face now, I'd still tell them where they could stick it.
Hi Bryan. You didn't quite understand the reason in the argument for assuming a Biblical type god existed. It was to demonstrate that the concept was absurd. Ergo the whole Bible as well. If you still don't see this look up reductio ad absurdum.
I understand the concept of reducing it to absurdity; I can do that quite well with the vast majority of the Bible.

"By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions."

I think this is where I get confused. If we assume that God is real then logically we must assume that the source of our information about God is real else how would we know about God? If those sources perceptions include seeing God then wouldn't they be able to acknowledge his existence?
In the disproof the biblical god is only assumed to exist for the sake of argument. For example, suppose you are standing outside under no shelter. Then for the sake of argument you assume that it is pooring down rain. At the same time you are not in the least wet. This means that your assumption that it is raining is absurd. (You reduced it to absurdity, i.e., reductio ad absurdum.) The only alternative to your absurd assumption that it is raining is that it is not raining. Therefore, you used the assumption that it is raining to prove it is not. This is a logical technique used in philosophical and mathematical arguments. The existence of a biblical god was assumed. The assumption was reduced to aburdity leaving as the only alternitive that a biblical tpye god cannot exist. This makes the whole bible absurd. (I have a feeling you were not so good at mathematical proofs. I am not so good at some things myself.)
No, I suck at math. But I'm currently enrolled in algebra!

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, I was saying that since we were assuming it was raining (there is a God) then we should also assume there were clouds (the prophets who brought us God) and the clouds would logically assume that I was getting wet (should believe in God or see God, too).

Haha! I was going backwards. (If I got that right...)
Hi Bryan. Think of it this way: If we can show that the biblical god concept is absurd we will have shown that the whole bible is absurd (prophets and all).

In order to show that the biblical god concept is absurd we assume ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that a biblical type god exists. Then from this assumption using only logic we arrive at an absurd proposition. This means that our assumption that a biblical type god existed was absurd. This means that there cannot be a real biblical type god.

If there is no biblical type god then all of the rest of the bible is absurd too.

I believe you are taking the assumption of the existence of a biblical type god too seriously. It is only for the sake of argument.

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