Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. It is not readily obvious that a good being cannot demand worship, or that there is any logical inconsistency in it doing so.

2. It is not readily obvious that it is somehow ‘not good’ to tempt people.

3. It is not established (and likely unprovable) that free will exists, let alone that all beings have it.

4. While an all-powerful, all-knowing being clearly could prevent child rape, there is no reason to suppose that it must do so.

5. This one seems to be a re-statement (or possibly an expansion) of #1.

Boru

It appears to me that you are simply denying premises that are very well supported. Good beings are generally thought of as selfless so the premise that they do not freely wish to be worshiped is very well founded. Likewise, the premise that it is wrong to freely tempt good beings to be bad is very well founded. As for the freewill premise judicial systems all over the world subscribe to it. You missed the point in disproof 4.). The point was that an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good god would prevent child rape and since it is not being prevented such a god cannot exist.  Disproof 5.) is founded in Descartes' position that we cannot know whether our perceptions are validly reflecting an external reality. Thanks for responding. 

That’s that the point - the premises are NOT well supported, they’re simply assertions.

The notion that good beings are ‘thought of as selfless’ doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny, as there are many beings who manage to be good while maintaining a significant level of self-interest.

As for the temptation thing, it isn’t enough to simply re-phrase what you claimed earlier. I can easily think of several reasons that tempting people is more of a moral good than not tempting.

Judicial systems are a pretty weak example that free will exists. In fact, there are numerous instances where courts decline to punish people by finding that the accused are not always responsible for their actions.

You made a subtle change in you child rape example - you went from ‘could’ to ‘would’. It’s clear that a god in the Abrahamic mode COULD prevent child rape. Whether such a god WOULD do so is an unjustified assumption. God may have sufficient reasons for allowing child rape that you know nothing about.

Founded in Descartes or not, your 5th premise is essentially your first.

Since each of your opening statements are flawed, I feel justified in dismissing the arguments you base on them.

Boru