Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-06-2021, 05:43 PM)julep Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 03:27 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(06-06-2021, 09:24 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: By a Biblical type god I meant a god with at least the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely desiring to be worshiped by others. These characteristics are generally associated with the god of the Bible. They are also logically inconsistent with each other necessitating that a Biblical type god cannot exist. The disproofs that I presented demonstrate the logical inconsistencies of the characteristics in five different ways in the form of natural language to the conclusions that a Biblical type god cannot exist.


(06-06-2021, 09:24 AM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: Being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good ......
  Yeah, that's kindov the sticking place for this particular god.  Omniscience is problematic.  Why would an omniscient, all knowing god create humans knowing that they will, by their own free will, choose wrongly and end up burning in hell for eternity. 

And then there's this.....  

Quote: Isaiah 45:7....   I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

The newer bibles have had to change the word "evil" and turn the word into "chaos" to sanitize it and make it more pallatable to the modern ear, but the ancient Hebrew word for evil is a totally different word than chaos and the Hebrew word "evil" is original to the Hebrew text.   Free will is actually nowhere in the Bible.  It's something Christians came up with to explain evil and other bad stuff that happens to people so their god doesn't get blamed for it.

Also the omni- aspects are not the biblical god's; they were incorporated from greek philosophy by the early church.

The omni- aspects also go back to Zoroastriansim and Ahura Mazda who was all the things the Biblical god was - except  he predates Yahweh. Zoroastrianism goes back about 4000 years.  A lot of Zoroastriansim filtered into the Hebrew text during the Exile in which Jews came in contact with worshippers of Ahura Mazda.   Zoroasteriasm goes back to Zoroaster who was not himself a god but a prophet of a god who was led to the one true god, Ahura Mazda.  I believe the ancient Greeks and Zoroastrianism sort of intermingled early on.   It's an interesting religion.  The Mazda car is named after this god.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dom, Inkubus
Reply

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
(06-04-2021, 06:26 PM)JohnJubinsky Wrote: to Percie: It is clear from my remarks associated with worship in disproof 1.) that by worship I meant the free desire to hold others in prostration. I hope you are not sayings that good beings could freely desire to hold others in prostration.

1. I haven't noticed a lot of Christians held in prostration lately, so the argument still fails

2. You expanded to say that good beings are necessarily egoless
Reply

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
Looking at the omni perfection aspects and how they got here, and also into so many of these logic and apologetic discussions, they seem to be discussed a lot, in terms of their incompatibility and contradictions. It was mentioned that the OP’s author went to a Catholic School, and that provided a possible clue for his god’s origins. The Roman Church has had a description of its definitions, beliefs and doctrines in a small book called “The Catechism” since medieval times. It has been re-written and updated a number of times, (at least twice since Vatican II).

Since at least the late 1800’s American Catholic school children were made to memorize parts of it, to prepare for Confirmation, and/or just for religion class. The version they learned from until about the late 1960s was called “The Baltimore Catechism”. https://archive.org/stream/baltimorecate.../14551.txt  This may be the latest version :  https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM  I suspect the god he’s talking about is that one. If he went to Catholic School, that might be what he was taught. It’s not really the “Biblical-type” god; it’s the god as defined by the Roman Church, … and they are different. Catholics think that besides the Bible (as opposed to Protestants who say per Luther’s “sola scriptura” they ONLY need the Bible), both “Scripture AND Tradition” provide Catholics with what they believe. So it appears what he’s disproving, is the Roman Catholic deity, as defined in the Baltimore Catechism, and not the Bible. If you scroll down a bit in the link above, to the Second Lesson, (after the prayers), you get the definitions, and the aspects of their god. That’s what Catholics used to be taught, quite a while ago. The new editions don’t present the beliefs in this way, and I don’t think there are any “omnis” (at all) in the revised versions.
As Dancefortwo mentioned, the omni-aspects came from Zoroastrianism, and there were 101.  

https://sites.google.com/site/zoroastria...tes-of-god  The Bible doesn’t actually “say” Yahweh has all the 4 or 5 most popular “omnis”. Obviously Yahweh is not omniscient, as he was sorry he made humans, and drowned the lot of them, all except Noah and his family. He didn’t KNOW he would be sorry, or he wouldn’t *be* sorry. (John’s gospel however says he is omniscient). He’s not presented as omni-benevolent (at all) as Israel is commanded to slaughter innocent women and children in the conquest battles of Canaan. He also kills people for just accidentally brushing up against the poles that carry the arc. There may be a few verses that say things that are interpreted as omni-present, but it’s contradicted by the verses and psalms that say he’s not in Sheol, (the underworld where ALL the dead went). Catholics have all kinds of explanations for any possible aspect inconsistency, and in fact the Bible itself says Yahweh cannot be comprehended by humans. Catholics reserve the right to “interpret” the Bible anyway they want by authority from the Church’s “magisterium” (teaching authority), so inconsistency is irrelevant to them. What we see presented in the OP is a straw-man god, in terms of the Yahweh god in the Bible, and the god of the Roman Catholics.  

There are a number of things that strike me as questionable in the OP.

1. The use of logic (alone) in this way is not correct. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Besides Logic, … evidence is needed. There may be evidence that a benevolent god does not exist, but it’s not presented. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

It has never been established that the gods MUST appear to be 100 % logically consistent to humans, in order for them to exist. The “biblical-type” god was said to be “unfathomable” in the Bible. THAT is the "Biblical-type god. As Sean Carroll told William Craig in their debate, (which went unanswered by Craig), there are many logics. Some of them, while used perfectly consistently, internally, do not obtain in reality. Therefore one must name and demonstrate that the logic you’re using is applicable to the subject at hand. I have yet to see anyone discussing the gods, even attempt to do this. It’s a game ender. Logic alone, does not prove anything about anything. Anyone who has taken Logic knows there are all kinds of absurd conclusions that can be obtained from logic alone.

2. We know from science that fundamental reality is not necessarily intuitively logical to human brains. Relativity, Uncertainty, the tensors of Dirac, quantum mechanics .. do not appear to be “logical” to human brains. Appearing to be illogical is NOT a game ender, for reality, which appears to be the assumption here.

3. The absolute nonsense about “ego” is just nuts, psychologically. Lack of ego, is a pathological psychological  disorder, associated with a number of other mental illnesses, as described in the psych literature, and the DSM-5.  No ego is a very bad thing, as there is no “sense of self”, and it leads to many other psych problems, and / or is associated with other pathologies.
https://www.verywellmind.com/ego-strength-2795169  That argument is totally bogus.

4. The current consensus in Neuro-science is that if there is “any” “Free Will”, it’s a VERY small percentage in decision-making.  
https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid149375

5. Next the “prostrate” business. No one WITH “Free Will” (above) would have to be prostrate, so the argument is self-refuting, but, no. “You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; you have loosed my sackcloth and clothed me with gladness”. Psalm 30:11.               I see no "prostrate" anyone there.

6. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philos...sm_is.html Humans can, to a very high degree of certainty, both by cross-checking each other, various forms of validation,  and by using any number of technologies or designed experiments, know for a fact, that what they perceive is accurate. Solipsism is debunked.

7. The assertion that one has proved there is no god, implies that Agnosticism, Apatheism and Igtheism are invalid positions. The OP is a statement for strong atheism. Many people of non-belief REJECT the strong atheism position.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God
Quote: It’s not really the “Biblical-type” god; it’s the god as defined by the Roman Church,


Among other things, that god likes Bingo.  And money.  He really loves money.... and none of this bitcoin shit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)