(June 13, 2021 at 9:04 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I am trying to repudiate a concept of god.

OK, but it seems that you are attempting to repudiating a specific concept of the christian god(s), the literal biblical concept. As you can tell from Bel's posts, he has a different concept(s),  he believes it's a superior concept(s).

But what does it matter? AFAIC you might as well be debating the attributes of grey aliens vs green aliens. Don't get caught up in which conception is better/worse.

If you derive pleasure in debating christians, knock yourself out.

(June 13, 2021 at 9:52 am)brewer Wrote:

(June 13, 2021 at 9:04 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote: [quote pid='2043270' dateline='1623584064']
I am trying to repudiate a concept of god.

OK, but it seems that you are attempting to repudiating a specific concept of the christian god(s), the literal biblical concept. As you can tell from Bel's posts, he has a different concept(s),  he believes it's a superior concept(s).

But what does it matter? AFAIC you might as well be debating the attributes of grey aliens vs green aliens. Don't get caught up in which conception is better/worse.

If you derive pleasure in debating christians, knock yourself out.
[/quote]

I am going to end it with my next post.

(June 13, 2021 at 10:15 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote:

Quote:brewer Wrote:

OK, but it seems that you are attempting to repudiating a specific concept of the christian god(s), the literal biblical concept. As you can tell from Bel's posts, he has a different concept(s),  he believes it's a superior concept(s).

But what does it matter? AFAIC you might as well be debating the attributes of grey aliens vs green aliens. Don't get caught up in which conception is better/worse.

If you derive pleasure in debating christians, knock yourself out.

I am going to end it with my next post.

Bold: I'm not sure what that means.

(June 13, 2021 at 9:52 am)brewer Wrote:

(June 13, 2021 at 9:04 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I am trying to repudiate a concept of god.

OK, but it seems that you are attempting to repudiating a specific concept of the christian god(s), the literal biblical concept. As you can tell from Bel's posts, he has a different concept(s),  he believes it's a superior concept(s).

But what does it matter? AFAIC you might as well be debating the attributes of grey aliens vs green aliens. Don't get caught up in which conception is better/worse.

If you derive pleasure in debating christians, knock yourself out.

Well, since Christianity is a widely practiced religion and literalists exist in great numbers, maybe it's worthwhile to point out inconsistencies.

(June 14, 2021 at 3:32 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(June 13, 2021 at 9:52 am)brewer Wrote: OK, but it seems that you are attempting to repudiating a specific concept of the christian god(s), the literal biblical concept. As you can tell from Bel's posts, he has a different concept(s),  he believes it's a superior concept(s).

But what does it matter? AFAIC you might as well be debating the attributes of grey aliens vs green aliens. Don't get caught up in which conception is better/worse.

If you derive pleasure in debating christians, knock yourself out.

Well, since Christianity is a widely practiced religion and literalists exist in great numbers, maybe it's worthwhile to point out inconsistencies.

Agreed, but they know the inconsistencies and go right on believing applying all kinds of mental gymnastics. The golden ticket is apparently powerful stuff.

Since I've some to expect no change I view the many 'disproofs' as either poking the bear or shits and giggles.

(June 14, 2021 at 7:08 am)brewer Wrote:

(June 14, 2021 at 3:32 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Well, since Christianity is a widely practiced religion and literalists exist in great numbers, maybe it's worthwhile to point out inconsistencies.

Agreed, but they know the inconsistencies and go right on believing applying all kinds of mental gymnastics. The golden ticket is apparently powerful stuff.

Since I've some to expect no change I view the many 'disproofs' as either  poking the bear or shits and giggles.

The disproofs are meant for agnostics as well as theists.

(June 12, 2021 at 4:03 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I have noticed that a lot of people including many atheists think it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of a Biblical type god. However, assuming that a Biblical type god is an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being who freely holds that it should be worshiped each of the five disproofs below logically demonstrates that one cannot exist. Following them is a very formal version of disproof 5.). I have copyrighted all of the disproofs not to prevent others from using them but only to establish that I had the ideas at the copyright dates. Feel free to use them as much as you like.

 
1.) Good beings do not freely hold that they should be worshiped. They wish to inspire others (and especially others who are good) to be as good as and even better than they not hold them in prostration. Freely attempting to hold others (and especially others who are good) in prostration is on its face proof that the attempter is not good. Accordingly, a being who is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being who is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
2.) Freely permitting the temptation of good beings to be bad is inconsistent with good itself. As such, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god would not do it. Obviously, however, the temptation of good beings to be bad exists throughout the world. Accordingly, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
3.) All beings have freewill. As such, a being that is all-good would have it. Moreover, in knowing that it had freewill it would know that it had the capacity to choose to become evil. In this it would know that if it chose to become evil while being worshiped the worshipers would be left to follow it (evil) in blind faith. Accordingly, being all-good it would not freely hold that it should be worshiped (and especially would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by the good). As such, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
4.) Some wrongs are so bad that there is no amount of compensation that could be given to the victim that would result in justice. If an innocent child is raped not even everlasting life in paradise could make up for it. Obviously, however, innocent children are raped every day on an international basis. An all-powerful and all-knowing god would be able to prevent this. Accordingly, an all-powerful, all-knowing and just god does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is all-powerful, all-knowing and just (it is just in being all-good). Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
5.) Demanding to be worshiped by others is tantamount to demanding that they sacrifice the most important thing that they possess – their self-honesty. That is, as Descartes and many others have pointed out, we have no way to know with absolute certainty whether our perceptions validly reflect an external reality. As such, we cannot self-honestly worship something that is supposed to be part of an external reality. More specifically, worshiping something that is supposed to be part of an external reality would require that we hold with absolute certainty that it exists in the first place but no matter what perceptions we experience it is impossible for us to self-honestly hold with absolute certainty that there is an external reality at all. As such, a being that is all-good would not freely hold that it should be worshiped. Accordingly, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
Disproofs 2.) and 4.) also establish that there cannot even be an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god that does not want to be worshiped.
 
Below is a very formal example of disproof 5.). A version of it 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.
 
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 absolutely 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. Moreover, 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 great veneration together with subscribing absolutely to the existence of its object. In that one cannot worship something without subscribing absolutely to its existence this definition of worship is entirely representative of the actual meaning of the word.
 
The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perceiver who is perfect in goodness and holds that it is right for others to worship it. This definition is entirely consistent with the full definition of a Biblical type god.
 
We shall proceed with a logical technique called 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 cannot worship it unless they subscribe absolutely to its existence. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to subscribe absolutely to its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to subscribe absolutely to the existence of anything that is supposed to be part of an external reality. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect in goodness. 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 logical alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
Quod Erat Demonstrandum (That is, the disproof is complete.)

Two books that greatly influenced me are by the same author, the late Victor Stenger.

"God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism".

Others would be as following.

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins.

"God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens

"The End Of Faith" Sam Harris.

"Letter To A Christian Nation" Sam Harris

"2000 Years Of Disbelief" James A. Haught

"Infidel" Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

That is my short list.

(June 14, 2021 at 10:18 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 12, 2021 at 4:03 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I have noticed that a lot of people including many atheists think it is impossible to logically disprove the existence of a Biblical type god. However, assuming that a Biblical type god is an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being who freely holds that it should be worshiped each of the five disproofs below logically demonstrates that one cannot exist. Following them is a very formal version of disproof 5.). I have copyrighted all of the disproofs not to prevent others from using them but only to establish that I had the ideas at the copyright dates. Feel free to use them as much as you like.

 
1.) Good beings do not freely hold that they should be worshiped. They wish to inspire others (and especially others who are good) to be as good as and even better than they not hold them in prostration. Freely attempting to hold others (and especially others who are good) in prostration is on its face proof that the attempter is not good. Accordingly, a being who is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being who is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
2.) Freely permitting the temptation of good beings to be bad is inconsistent with good itself. As such, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god would not do it. Obviously, however, the temptation of good beings to be bad exists throughout the world. Accordingly, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
3.) All beings have freewill. As such, a being that is all-good would have it. Moreover, in knowing that it had freewill it would know that it had the capacity to choose to become evil. In this it would know that if it chose to become evil while being worshiped the worshipers would be left to follow it (evil) in blind faith. Accordingly, being all-good it would not freely hold that it should be worshiped (and especially would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by the good). As such, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
4.) Some wrongs are so bad that there is no amount of compensation that could be given to the victim that would result in justice. If an innocent child is raped not even everlasting life in paradise could make up for it. Obviously, however, innocent children are raped every day on an international basis. An all-powerful and all-knowing god would be able to prevent this. Accordingly, an all-powerful, all-knowing and just god does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is all-powerful, all-knowing and just (it is just in being all-good). Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
5.) Demanding to be worshiped by others is tantamount to demanding that they sacrifice the most important thing that they possess – their self-honesty. That is, as Descartes and many others have pointed out, we have no way to know with absolute certainty whether our perceptions validly reflect an external reality. As such, we cannot self-honestly worship something that is supposed to be part of an external reality. More specifically, worshiping something that is supposed to be part of an external reality would require that we hold with absolute certainty that it exists in the first place but no matter what perceptions we experience it is impossible for us to self-honestly hold with absolute certainty that there is an external reality at all. As such, a being that is all-good would not freely hold that it should be worshiped. Accordingly, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped. Therefore, a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
Disproofs 2.) and 4.) also establish that there cannot even be an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god that does not want to be worshiped.
 
Below is a very formal example of disproof 5.). A version of it 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.
 
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 absolutely 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. Moreover, 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 great veneration together with subscribing absolutely to the existence of its object. In that one cannot worship something without subscribing absolutely to its existence this definition of worship is entirely representative of the actual meaning of the word.
 
The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perceiver who is perfect in goodness and holds that it is right for others to worship it. This definition is entirely consistent with the full definition of a Biblical type god.
 
We shall proceed with a logical technique called 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 cannot worship it unless they subscribe absolutely to its existence. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to subscribe absolutely to its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to subscribe absolutely to the existence of anything that is supposed to be part of an external reality. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect in goodness. 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 logical alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.
 
Quod Erat Demonstrandum (That is, the disproof is complete.)

Two books that greatly influenced me are by the same author, the late Victor Stenger.

"God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism".

Others would be as following.

"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins.

"God Is Not Great" Christopher Hitchens

"The End Of Faith" Sam Harris.

"Letter To A Christian Nation" Sam Harris

"2000 Years Of Disbelief" James A. Haught

"Infidel" Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

That is my short list.

I can see that you are well read.

What no N. T. Wright or David Bentely Hart?