Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[Belacqua]

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? 

There are various answers to this, depending on the thinker.

A common explanation is that bonum diffusivum sui -- the Good tends to spread itself. A good which exists for itself is not fully good. Goodness by its nature emanates, or spreads, or overflows itself. 

Because of the 1st commandment my definition of a Biblical type god specifies that it freely holds that it should be worshiped.

Here, too there are various replies.

The literal God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the theologians or the philosophers. So I'm not talking here about the people who believe in an angry God taking direct action in people's lives. 

You're arguing against the literal sola scriptura reading of the Bible, and I agree with you that such a reading doesn't make sense.

And as I mentioned, worship does nothing for God, but is good for the worshippers. Like prayer, it doesn't change God but may change the person praying. A simplified way to think of it is that God is the Good, and worship is a way of focussing your mind on that Good.

[Foxaèr]

With subjective interpretation one can create the god of his choice.

[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.

[Belacqua]

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.

You have a precise idea of what kind of book God would write. I can understand that this is the kind of book that you would prefer. Or the kind of book you think you would write if you were God. 

But there are other ideas about what it's for, how it's to be used, etc. 

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?

I think the defense attorney would object at this point, and say "compound question." But I'll address a little of it.

We judge the quality of the interpretations we read by using our knowledge and our judgment. This requires a certain amount of background knowledge. 

There are various methodologies, but a good introduction to biblical hermeneutics would get you started on the standard approaches. 

Blake was extremely well read in a deeply-rooted minority tradition. It was most strongly presented to him in the works of Jacob Boehme, and Boehme himself knew arguments from Nicholas of Cusa, Eriugena, and many other influential Christians. Blake was a poet and expressed himself in a number of suggestive ways. His works are generally challenges and puzzles without final answers. 

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"?

We would have to decide what "obeying it exactly as written" means. Following precisely all 613 mitzvahs? He seems to say that the written law is essential, but something we should have in our hearts, so that we follow its spirit. This keeps the law intact while also demanding a difficult change in how we apply it. How his statement is to be applied is addressed elsewhere in the NT, so I suppose you could stay sola scriptura while debating this. The Church Fathers have generally helped people in their readings, though, so going outside the text is normal and useful.

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

People could use it that way. Or they could use it as an excuse to ignore the parts that are difficult but good. 

Hermeneutics has a long history. It's been used in different ways.

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

They disagreed about a number of things, so I suspect there would be differences of opinion. The Gospel of John begins by calling Jesus the Logos -- a term from Greek philosophy which shows him to be not external to reality, but a fundamental and inseparable part of reality itself. 

There's a notion that the early guys thought of God as a sky-daddy or a powerful guy like Zeus, but remember that the Jews had been thinking about things for a long time, and the time of Christ was soaked in Hellenism, so non-sky-daddy interpretations of God were common. 

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


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? 

It's not an argument from authority. Those work differently. If I said, "Blake said it therefore it must be true and you have to believe it," that would be such a logical fallacy. But I'm not saying that. I am demonstrating that there is one prominent Christian who disagreed with the God as described in the OP. I am not saying what is true, or that Blake is right. Only that the OP's description is rejected by many Christians.

We benefit from listening to Blake because he was an amazing genius.

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.

He got his information from lots and lots of people and books. As a poet and artist, he used the ideas he read and manifested them in various symbols, which he then used to develop his knowledge further.

If you're wanting to test his statements in an empirical, scientific way, that's not going to work. Metaphysical claims are by definition not scientific claims. You have to argue them out, use your brain, and use your best judgment. To do this well, you have to take the time to learn what they were talking about. You also have to be comfortable with uncertainty, and the knowledge that, by definition, talking about the ineffable will fall short.

It might seem as if he's begging the question if you hadn't followed his reasoning and his system, which is worked out in detail and doesn't merely affirm the consequent.

[brewer]

[JohnJubinsky]

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? 

There are various answers to this, depending on the thinker.

A common explanation is that bonum diffusivum sui -- the Good tends to spread itself. A good which exists for itself is not fully good. Goodness by its nature emanates, or spreads, or overflows itself.

I think we have come to agree on something. You said that the god you are talking about is different from the god of the Bible. I think so too. The god that you are talking about seems to be strictly a power and not a being. The Biblical type god that my disproofs address is a being of male gender who made us in its image (i.e., as beings). However, I still have problems as to your explanation of why your type of god created the universe. That is, it existed an infinite amount of time before creating so it would have had all of the time it needed (i.e., an infinite amount of time) to completely fulfill itself before creating, This would eliminate expansion as the cause of it creating. Additionally, being driven by expansion to create still seems to me to be inconsistent with needing nothing. 

Because of the 1st commandment my definition of a Biblical type god specifies that it freely holds that it should be worshiped.

Here, too there are various replies.

The literal God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the theologians or the philosophers. So I'm not talking here about the people who believe in an angry God taking direct action in people's lives. 

You're arguing against the literal sola scriptura reading of the Bible, and I agree with you that such a reading doesn't make sense.

And as I mentioned, worship does nothing for God, but is good for the worshippers. Like prayer, it doesn't change God but may change the person praying. A simplified way to think of it is that God is the Good, and worship is a way of focussing your mind on that Good.

[Belacqua]

I think we have come to agree on something. You said that the god you are talking about is different from the god of the Bible. I think so too. 

Yes, that's what I intended. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. 

The God you are describing is very specific type, derived from a certain type of reading of the Bible -- a naive reading rejected by many Christians. 

So I only wanted to say that while your arguments against that type of God may well be good ones, they won't bother many Christians. 

However, I still have problems as to your explanation of why your type of god created the universe. That is, it existed an infinite amount of time before creating so it would have had all of the time it needed (i.e., an infinite amount of time) to completely fulfill itself before creating, This would eliminate expansion as the cause of it creating. Additionally, being driven by expansion to create still seems to me to be inconsistent with needing nothing. 

Normally theologians don't say that it existed an infinite amount of time before creating. Augustine made the argument that became standard afterward, that since time began with the creation of the universe (no stuff=no time) then talking about God existing "before" creation is incoherent. (It's likely that the guy who came up with the idea of the Big Bang was aware of Augustine's argument, since people say similar things about the Big Bang -- there was no "before." The guy who came up with the notion of the Big Bang was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.)

And again, the idea that God needed time to "fulfill itself" doesn't jibe with the theologians' model of God. For them, God is fulfillment itself (actus purus), not needing change at any point. 

(There was a fascinating divergence from this theory by Jacob Boehme, who thought that God did develop, and actually needed humanity in order to do so. This is not generally accepted by most Christians (e.g. the Pope would hate it) but Hegel stole the idea and got famous for it.)

The argument about emanation is that goodness, by its nature, wants to be good for others. Think of a person who sits in his room all the time and thinks good thoughts but does nothing at all for the world. Is such a person as good as he can be? The argument is that he isn't so good if he doesn't spread goodness outside of his room. So a God which was the Form of the Good would, buy its nature, emanate goodness even though he didn't need to. He had no purpose, needed nothing, but it was just in his nature to spread good. (This argument derives ultimately from Plato.)

[Fake Messiah]

[brewer]

It's hard to take people seriously, and often frustrating, when they talk about god as if it existed in reality.

John, god is man made, there has never been any concrete evidence that it existed as anything more than a mental concept. Debating the attributes of god is a pointless exercise as man can make god whatever he wants (consider how many gods/religions there are or why god beliefs have changed over time). Might as well be debating the positive or negative attributes of Superman.

[JohnJubinsky]

It's hard to take people seriously, and often frustrating, when they talk about god as if it existed in reality.

John, god is man made, there has never been any concrete evidence that it existed as anything more than a mental concept. Debating the attributes of god is a pointless exercise as man can make god whatever he wants (consider how many gods/religions there are or why god beliefs have changed over time). Might as well be debating the positive or negative attributes of Superman.

I am trying to repudiate a concept of god.

---

I think we have come to agree on something. You said that the god you are talking about is different from the god of the Bible. I think so too. 

Yes, that's what I intended. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. 

The God you are describing is very specific type, derived from a certain type of reading of the Bible -- a naive reading rejected by many Christians. 

So I only wanted to say that while your arguments against that type of God may well be good ones, they won't bother many Christians. 

However, I still have problems as to your explanation of why your type of god created the universe. That is, it existed an infinite amount of time before creating so it would have had all of the time it needed (i.e., an infinite amount of time) to completely fulfill itself before creating, This would eliminate expansion as the cause of it creating. Additionally, being driven by expansion to create still seems to me to be inconsistent with needing nothing. 

Normally theologians don't say that it existed an infinite amount of time before creating. Augustine made the argument that became standard afterward, that since time began with the creation of the universe (no stuff=no time) then talking about God existing "before" creation is incoherent. (It's likely that the guy who came up with the idea of the Big Bang was aware of Augustine's argument, since people say similar things about the Big Bang -- there was no "before." The guy who came up with the notion of the Big Bang was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.)

And again, the idea that God needed time to "fulfill itself" doesn't jibe with the theologians' model of God. For them, God is fulfillment itself (actus purus), not needing change at any point. 

(There was a fascinating divergence from this theory by Jacob Boehme, who thought that God did develop, and actually needed humanity in order to do so. This is not generally accepted by most Christians (e.g. the Pope would hate it) but Hegel stole the idea and got famous for it.)

The argument about emanation is that goodness, by its nature, wants to be good for others. Think of a person who sits in his room all the time and thinks good thoughts but does nothing at all for the world. Is such a person as good as he can be? The argument is that he isn't so good if he doesn't spread goodness outside of his room. So a God which was the Form of the Good would, buy its nature, emanate goodness even though he didn't need to. He had no purpose, needed nothing, but it was just in his nature to spread good. (This argument derives ultimately from Plato.)

I agree that goodness by its nature wants to be good for others but if there are no others for it to inspire why create them as suffering individuals?