Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[Simon Moon]

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.)

A surprisingly large number of Christians agree with most or all of what you say here. Sola scriptura literalism is, historically, the minority view.

Sure seems like a pretty weak ass god, who feels the critical need to communicate his message to all of humanity, for the foreseeable future , but does not make it clear enough to understand as written. Not to mention, rely on admittedly fallible beings to constantly feel the need to reinterpret the message.

And please inform us, how should we go about knowing whether an interpretation from say, 500 years ago, is not more accurate than one from 1900 years ago, or 10? What is the methodology we should use? What methodology did William Blake use?

And while you're at it, is the passage of the Bible (Matthew 5:18, where Jesus says, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished", one that should be interpreted as written? Or is there a way to ignore it, because obeying it exactly as written is using "sola scriptura"?

Doesn't it seem, that not following the Bible, sola scriptura, is just an excuse to ignore all the truly horrible parts?

Much of what you say about God here is not what educated Christians believe. For example, the idea that God is "part of an external reality" doesn't fit with Christian metaphysics. So it's good to argue against those who believe in what you describe, but a lot of what you describe isn't what a lot of Christians believe.

But wouldn't ancient Christians, who were much closer to the actual events, would disagree with this?  

William Blake (a serious Christian) called the kind of God you're describing "Old Nobodaddy."
[/quote]

Ignoring, for a minute, that this is nothing by an argument from authority fallacy, why should we listen to anything Blake says about a god, or any other 'serious' Christians have to say?

Where is he getting their information from? How can we go about testing his information, against other 'serious' Christians, who disagree with him?

Sure seems like he is begging the question.