Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[JohnJubinsky]

Good beings are generally thought of as selfless so the premise that they do not freely wish to be worshiped is very well founded. 

Here's a good example of where the popular view of God and the theological one differ. (I have no idea what percentage of Christians hold to the more anthropomorphized, simple view vs. how many do not.)

The major theologians argue that God "wishes" nothing -- including to be worshipped. Being perfect, complete, and ideal, such a God would lack nothing, and since desire is based on lack, God wants nothing. 

There is a lot of analogous language in play. When theologians say "God wants us to do X," it isn't desire in the way people have desire. God is the Good itself. All things are drawn to the Good. "God wants X" is an anthropomorphized expression meaning "It is good to do X." 

If they say "God wants to be worshipped," it means that the worship of God is good for us. We can't do anything good for God, because he wants and needs nothing. And the act of worship is a means of drawing us more into line with the goodness. 

Because God is the Good itself, he doesn't cause action in the world by reaching down and doing stuff. People naturally desire the Good, and wanting to work toward the good causes them to act, and this is the way that God causes action. As desired goal.

But you're right that a lot of rank-and-file Christians believe in something more similar to the Nobodaddy you're describing.

One question in my mind about the definition of god that you are using is that if god lacked nothing then why did it desire to create the universe instead of just existing in perfection? Because of the 1st commandment my definition of a Biblical type god specifies that it freely holds that it should be worshiped.