The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof

John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof

 

            The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

 

            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 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.  Additionally, however, 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 veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

 

            The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it.  This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

 

            We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves 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 must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible.  At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  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 alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

                                                                      Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

            It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

 

            Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

 

            As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.  As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that meaningful development as the entities that we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

 

                                                                                  John Jubinsky

                                                                            MA–Mathematics, CPA

 

                                                                         [email protected]


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:By definition it holds

 

 

 

 

Quote:
By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it.  By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible.  At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  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.

 

 

I think there are ways for God to make himself vulnerable to beings' perception. If I can show that there are, then there is no contradiction here, since he would no longer be asking beings to do the impossible in asking them to worship him.

First, your argument seems to ignore the omnipotence of God. If God is omnipotent, then he has the ability to do anything, by definition. This would include making “beings” – as you call us – aware of his existence in a number of ways. He could directly alter their minds to cause them to have beliefs in him with a high degree of warrant, or he could give them beliefs that they could only have arrived at through divine intervention, or he could change their environment dramatically in ways that cause them to have beliefs in him (for examples, see the Bible). If he did any of those things, he would no longer be asking beings to do the impossible, and so there would be no contradiction.

Second, your argument does not account for Calvin’s sensus divinatus or Craig’s “witness of the Holy Spirit”. Christians commonly hold that there is a sense that makes us aware of the existence of God in some way (the exact account varies). If God did equip us with such a sense, he would no longer be asking us to do the impossible, since he would be making himself vulnerable to our perception, and there would be no contradiction.

Further, your argument makes a questionable moral assumption. It assumes that there is an obligation on God to make his creation aware of his existence. But you have never shown that such an obligation exists, or even gestured in the direction of something that the lord of all existence would get such an obligation from.

I don’t think your argument shows that God is logically contradictory. Nor do I think any argument will show that God is logically contradictory. As the great mathematician and philosopher Leibniz pointed out, all of God’s qualities are positive – great power, great knowledge, great goodness, and so on – and so we can be sure that there is no conflict between them.

Quote:
It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

This seems arbitrary to me.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
You don't actually have to

You don't actually have to disprove something that's irrational, coming from someone who, say, bother you in the street.

All you need to do is to tell the bastards to PISS OFF!

And punch them on the nose if they can't take the hint.

But if they are leaving you alone I don't really see the problem. Live and let live, yanno...

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The definition of a 'being'

The definition of a 'being' is grossly inadequate. No real 'being' can know whether its perceptions accurately reflect reality, and for any finite being they almost certainly do not. And anyway this is irrelevant to the definition of a 'being'.

'Worship' is only defined by the intensity of veneration of the worshipped entity. It goes without saying that the worshipper assumes the object of worship exists in some sense.

We cannot logically argue about the existence or a God unless it can be coherently and clearly defined, and any infinite or omni- attributes are immediately problematic. You would first need to determine whether the 'defined' entity is even possible before you can try to prove its existence.

I see no point in proceeding further - the definitions are all inadequate.

EDIT:

I just noticed this topic has been posted more than once - I thought I might I forgotten to actually post my earlier response to this or it might have disappeared into limbo.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The logical disproof

Quote:
The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

 

            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 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.  Additionally, however, 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 veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

 

            The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it.  This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

 

            We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves 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 must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible.  At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  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 alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

 

                                                                      Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

            It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

 

            Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

 

            As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.  As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that meaningful development as the entities that we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result

Lol. If a being cannot know whether their internal perceptions of external things are indicative of reality, then you have undermined your own argument.  Assuming that logic too is "external" (something we were not born with, rather, came to know by our senses of the external world, otherwise known as learning) and subject to the internal scrutiny of our perceptions, which is - as you say - impossible to prove indicative of an external reality, you have contradicted yourself. You can't say for certain whether your reducto ad absurdum is indicative of reality at all. Bwah ha ha ha.

 

Good try though.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
All objections aside, I

All objections aside, I rather enjoyed the OP's logically rigorous deductive method.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:All objections aside,

Quote:
All objections aside, I rather enjoyed the OP's logically rigorous deductive method.

That's like saying, "All facts about this orange aside, I rather like that it is an apple".

 

 

EDIT: Were you being sarcastic? Smiling


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:All

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
All objections aside, I rather enjoyed the OP's logically rigorous deductive method.

That's like saying, "All facts about this orange aside, I rather like that it is an apple".

 

 

EDIT: Were you being sarcastic? Smiling

Nonsense, and no.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nonsense, and no.How

Quote:
Nonsense, and no.

How so?

If the objection is that the conclusion of the argument is undermined by its premises, then you do not have a rigorously deductive argument (indeed, it is deductively invalid). Putting aside all objections to address the argument as a rigorously deductive one is precisely analogous to the statement about oranges and apples.

To be really pedantic, a more accurate way of saying what you said is, "Objections aside, I rather enjoyed the OP's attempt at a rigorously deductive method".

 

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate why the above is nonsense?


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Nonsense, and no.

How so?

If the objection is that the conclusion of the argument is undermined by its premises, then you do not have a rigorously deductive argument (indeed, it is deductively invalid). Putting aside all objections to address the argument as a rigorously deductive one is precisely analogous to the statement about oranges and apples.

To be really pedantic, a more accurate way of saying what you said is, "Objections aside, I rather enjoyed the OP's attempt at a rigorously deductive method".

 

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate why the above is nonsense?

Objectively, here's what the OP did. The OP stated his definitions and validated them. His definitions reduce the concepts "being," "worship," and "God" to lower-level concepts, permitting him to perform a proof. At every stage, he carefully explained what he was doing and where he was going. The style of the presentation reminded me of the style of a mathematical or philosophical proof.

Subjectively, I found this method pleasing. It is rare that an argument on this board reduces concepts to lower level concepts for the purposes of proving them - it is more common to take them as given - and I have never seen anyone try to validate his definitions. This seems to show a respect for the intelligence of the reader and the canons of proof. It is also rare for a poster to make sure the reader understands exactly what he is doing, which shows the intellectual honesty of the OP poster. The argument itself struck me as enjoyably elegant.

Does the argument fail? Yes. But I like what I saw the OP striving for here and I'd like to see more posts like it.

I'll stop derailing the thread now and let everyone get back to the OP's argument.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Reply to Quote

If your argument is that god can do virtually anything that he wants then he is responsible for all of the evil that ever existed because he would have been able to preclude.

 

The article is founded in the scientific nature of a being.  It is not about what a supposed god can do it is about what we as beings can do.  From a scientific perspective what made us did not provide us with the ability to do what a Biblical type god expects.  


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
John Jubinsky wrote:If your

John Jubinsky wrote:

If your argument is that god can do virtually anything that he wants then he is responsible for all of the evil that ever existed because he would have been able to preclude.

 

The article is founded in the scientific nature of a being.  It is not about what a supposed god can do it is about what we as beings can do.  From a scientific perspective what made us did not provide us with the ability to do what a Biblical type god expects.  

Your argument is supposed to be a logical disproof.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Objectively, here's

Quote:
Objectively, here's what the OP did. The OP stated his definitions and validated them. His definitions reduce the concepts "being," "worship," and "God" to lower-level concepts, permitting him to perform a proof. At every stage, he carefully explained what he was doing and where he was going. The style of the presentation reminded me of the style of a mathematical or philosophical proof.

Subjectively, I found this method pleasing. It is rare that an argument on this board reduces concepts to lower level concepts for the purposes of proving them - it is more common to take them as given - and I have never seen anyone try to validate his definitions. This seems to show a respect for the intelligence of the reader and the canons of proof. It is also rare for a poster to make sure the reader understands exactly what he is doing, which shows the intellectual honesty of the OP poster. The argument itself struck me as enjoyably elegant.

Does the argument fail? Yes. But I like what I saw the OP striving for here and I'd like to see more posts like it.

I'll stop derailing the thread now and let everyone get back to the OP's argument.

Meh, all I will say is that you are entitled to your own opinion.

Watching two theists argue is like watching womens wrestling - it's so wrong, but you just can't turn away.

Peace brother.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Objectively, here's what the OP did. The OP stated his definitions and validated them. His definitions reduce the concepts "being," "worship," and "God" to lower-level concepts, permitting him to perform a proof. At every stage, he carefully explained what he was doing and where he was going. The style of the presentation reminded me of the style of a mathematical or philosophical proof.

Subjectively, I found this method pleasing. It is rare that an argument on this board reduces concepts to lower level concepts for the purposes of proving them - it is more common to take them as given - and I have never seen anyone try to validate his definitions. This seems to show a respect for the intelligence of the reader and the canons of proof. It is also rare for a poster to make sure the reader understands exactly what he is doing, which shows the intellectual honesty of the OP poster. The argument itself struck me as enjoyably elegant.

Does the argument fail? Yes. But I like what I saw the OP striving for here and I'd like to see more posts like it.

I'll stop derailing the thread now and let everyone get back to the OP's argument.

Meh, all I will say is that you are entitled to your own opinion.

Watching two theists argue is like watching womens wrestling - it's so wrong, but you just can't turn away.

Peace brother.

 

Palestine vs Israel anyone?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If your argument is


Quote:
If your argument is that god can do virtually anything that he wants then he is responsible for all of the evil that ever existed because he would have been able to preclude.

 

The article is founded in the scientific nature of a being.  It is not about what a supposed god can do it is about what we as beings can do.  From a scientific perspective what made us did not provide us with the ability to do what a Biblical type god expects.

Is that directed at me? If so, I must not have explained myself properly.

 

It is the premise that, "a being ...who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality"; that undermines your argument. Said being will not know whether its perceptions of reality have anything to do with the external reality. But this is not the only difficulty your argument faces.

Your argument, appropriately formatted:                                          (omitted rhetoric, reworded premise 4)

1. A being is a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality.

2. A being has no way to test whether it's perceptions have anything to do with an external reality

3. Beings sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality

4. Beings cannot rule out the possibility that it is our nature to (continually internally generate an artificial reality) all of the time

5. The definition of a being is self evident.

6. Worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist

7. God is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it

8. God holds that it is right for beings to worship it

9. Worship requires a being to acknowledge the existence of God

10. (Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence)

11. it is impossible for Beings to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions

----

12. The Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible.

 

And from here, you continue to the apparent contradiction:

 

13. At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

----

14. 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.

 

 

Now, premise 11. contradicts premise 1., in that you said a being cannot trust it's perceptions in premise 1., and then in premise 11., you state that it can trust only its perceptions. With this premise, your argument is explicitly contradictory (in the Plantinga sense of the word). Omitting either 1 or 11 would be a good start. If you omit premise one, your argument falls apart (if you want to omit it, you will have to resubmit your argument, mutatis mutandis). So it seems premise 11 must go.

 

This is not my actual objection, though. My objection was that premise one undermines your conclusion. You said that beings cannot trust any perceptions of an external world. Then, by your own statement, the conclusion that God has asked us to do something impossible must be a fact about the external world (if it to be used a proof that something in the external world cannot exist, which you could not prove anyway).

 

Put the two together, and you have the Liar Paradox - "This statement is false", or in your argument, "This conclusion is indicative of an external reality (there is no God)". It is impossible to assign a truth value to this conclusion giveb premise one, hence your argument is self refuting.