Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[JohnJubinsky]

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.)

[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

[Belacqua]

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.

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.

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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I find it difficult to accept that ‘a surprisingly large number of Christians’ agree that God doesn’t tempt people, or that God doesn’t want to be worshipped, or that child rape should be taken as evidence for the non-existence of God.

Boru

[JohnJubinsky]

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. 

[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

[JohnJubinsky]

I am new to the forum and cannot find any of the replies except the 1st one. When I click on the links in the e-mails that are supposed to take me to replies I don't see them. I can't even see the replies to my introduction post. I will keep trying. Bare with me.

---

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

I can see that you are missing the points in several ways and I am not prepared to spend a lot of time explaining them again. Let' just agree to disagree.

[brewer]

[Belacqua]

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.

[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.