John Jubinsky's Page

A Logical Disproof of the Biblical God Concept

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.