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, a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition. Because of this it is very easy to formulate airtight logical disproofs that one exists. Below are five such disproofs that are not only purely logical but brief. Following them is a very formal version of the fifth one. I have copyrighted all of the disproofs not to prevent others from using them but only to establish that they were my ideas. Feel free to use them as much as you like.

1.) Good beings do not freely desire to be worshiped. They desire 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 freely desires to be worshiped and is-all good does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being who freely desires to be worshiped and is all-good. 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 by others 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 by others (and especially would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by others who were good). As such, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped by others 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 by others. 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. 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 is right for others to worship it. Accordingly, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it is right for others to worship it does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it is right for others to worship it. 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.

The logical disproof of a Biblical type god to be presented involves malice toward none. It is solely in the interest of promoting enlightenment.
 
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.)

[Percie]

1.) Good beings do not freely desire to be worshiped. 

A lot of celebrities would disagree with you.

[Minimalist]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

[Bucky Ball]

LOL
Goodness, my ... aren't we impressed with ourself.
Copyrighted no less.

Such rubbish. You're obviously a rank amateur.
Your' "airtight" is as leaky as a sieve. No one here will even think of using such nonsense.

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

You haven't even defined what you're talking about.
Many theists (Christians) tell us they have the gift of faith. It's not about "proofs", and it certainly is not about disproofs.

You have not defined a "Biblical type" god. (There are many gods in the Bible, including Yahweh's wife).
You've made the very same fundamental error theists make in trying to "prove" their deities.
You have not named which of the many logics you are using, AND you have not demonstrated that the logic you use applies to the subject at hand.
In fact you know nothing about the environment they might exist in. As such, you can say nothing at all about them, and you certainly cannot apply your unnamed logic to a system you know nothing about. In fact all you know about is about 5% of this universe. You probably couldn't even generalize about that.

1. Your opinion. Supported with nothing. Dismissed.
2. Wrong. Merely your opinion. A being which wants to test your #3, could and might do it, if they *really* had *free will* (which you have not defined.
3. Completely 110 % false. (See the thread here on Free Will). Again, merely a assertion with no support. (You don't know much about neuro-science do you ?)
4. Still no definition of what you're even talking about.
(Don't even think you came up with this one. It's well-known from Greek Philosophy, and it has a name.
5. Solipcism has been debunked. There are ways to verify what humans say are their experiences.

[Dancefortwo]

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, a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition. Because of this it is very easy to formulate airtight logical disproofs that one exists. Below are five such disproofs that are not only purely logical but brief. Following them is a very formal version of the fifth one. I have copyrighted all of the disproofs not to prevent others from using them but only to establish that they were my ideas. Feel free to use them as much as you like.

1.) Good beings do not freely desire to be worshiped. They desire 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 freely desires to be worshiped and is-all good does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being who freely desires to be worshiped and is all-good. 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 by others 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 by others (and especially would not freely hold that it should be worshiped by others who were good). As such, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it should be worshiped by others 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 by others. 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. 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 is right for others to worship it. Accordingly, a being that is all-good and freely holds that it is right for others to worship it does not exist. However, by definition a Biblical type god is a being that is all-good and freely holds that it is right for others to worship it. 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.

The logical disproof of a Biblical type god to be presented involves malice toward none. It is solely in the interest of promoting enlightenment.
 
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.)

Um....just a little advice from Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

"...brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes.  I will be brief.  Your noble son is mad."  

What's so amusing is that Polonius says this after going on and on and not getting to the point.  Hamlet has some funny moments. 

[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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

There are multiple premises that are not expressly stated because doing so would make the disproofs unnecessarily harder to follow. The premises are founded in simple basic right and wrong. Because of this, although they are not expressly stated, they are nonetheless common knowledge. If I say somebody committed cold blooded murder and, therefore, cannot be all-good I should not have to expressly preface it with the premise that committing cold blooded murder is inconsistent with being good. Everybody already knows that so it makes an express premise unnecessary. In a court of law one who does not know the difference between simple basic right and wrong is considered legally insane. I think you are being unreasonable.

[Dancefortwo]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

There are multiple premises that are not expressly stated because doing so would make the disproofs unnecessarily harder to follow. The premises are founded in simple basic right and wrong. Because of this, although they are not expressly stated, they are nonetheless common knowledge. If I say somebody committed cold blooded murder and, therefore, cannot be all-good I should not have to expressly preface it with the premise that committing cold blooded murder is inconsistent with being good. Everybody already knows that so it makes an express premise unnecessary. In a court of law one who does not know the difference between simple basic right and wrong is considered legally insane. I think you are being unreasonable.

Did you do an introduction thread?  Just asking.   It's a common courtesy around these parts.

[Inkubus]

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...

For a biblical type god to exist it requires "Supernature".

(theology, philosophy) A level of existence above the physical or mundane; that which is above and beyond the material nature of something.

Wiki

The supernatural is not real, and we have known this for a long time. thread/

[Bucky Ball]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

There are multiple premises that are not expressly stated because doing so would make the disproofs unnecessarily harder to follow. The premises are founded in simple basic right and wrong. Because of this, although they are not expressly stated, they are nonetheless common knowledge. If I say somebody committed cold blooded murder and, therefore, cannot be all-good I should not have to expressly preface it with the premise that committing cold blooded murder is inconsistent with being good. Everybody already knows that so it makes an express premise unnecessary. In a court of law one who does not know the difference between simple basic right and wrong is considered legally insane. I think you are being unreasonable.

There is no "simple basic right and wrong". Some cultures hold some things wrong, and some do not.
The underlying assumptions in the OP are hardly "simple basic right and wrong".
They are not "common knowledge".
About 1/2 of the US population calls abortion cold-blooded murder.
About 1/2 does not.
All your assumptions are without basis.
Criminal insanity, (and its definition) is irrelevant in a logical argument. Two totally different things.

You arguments fail totally.
You cannot define what a "Biblical-type god" even is.

[Dancefortwo]

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...

For a biblical type god to exist it requires "Supernature".

(theology, philosophy) A level of existence above the physical or mundane; that which is above and beyond the material nature of something.

Wiki
The supernatural is not real, and we have known this for a long time. Thread/

If a god interacts with humans and our reality or has any effect on nature then it is not supernatural, it would be considered "natural".... not supernatural.   Everything once attributed to the supernatural or a god-being has been found to have a natural cause.  Earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues, diseases, droughts, solar and lunar eclipses all are naturally explained.  If you combind all the gods people have ever worshipped, no natural event has ever been proven to be caused by or the result of a god.

[Minimalist]

The premises are founded in simple basic right and wrong.

IOW, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Unsurprising.  Most religitards don't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What perfectly just and merciful godling would create Hell simply to punish those whose only wrong might only be that they don't worship said god?

Further, according to the Bible, the Abrahamic god himself created evil. Doesn't sound like a perfectly-good being to me.

The internal contradictions of the Abrahamic god pretty much mark such a god as a human creation. If you can defeat evil but don't do it, how good are you, really?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

LOL
Goodness, my ... aren't we impressed with ourself.
Copyrighted no less.

Such rubbish. You're obviously a rank amateur.
Your' "airtight" is as leaky as a sieve. No one here will even think of using such nonsense.

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

You haven't even defined what you're talking about.
Many theists (Christians) tell us they have the gift of faith. It's not about "proofs", and it certainly is not about disproofs.  

You have not defined a "Biblical type" god. (There are many gods in the Bible, including Yahweh's wife).
You've made the very same fundamental error theists make in trying to "prove" their deities.
You have not named which of the many logics you are using, AND you have not demonstrated that the logic you use applies to the subject at hand.  
In fact you know nothing about the environment they might exist in. As such, you can say nothing at all about them, and you certainly cannot apply your unnamed logic to a system you know nothing about. In fact all you know about is about 5% of this universe. You probably couldn't even generalize about that.

1. Your opinion. Supported with nothing. Dismissed.
2. Wrong. Merely your opinion. A being which wants to test your #3, could and might do it, if they *really* had *free will* (which you have not defined.
3. Completely 110 % false. (See the thread here on Free Will). Again, merely a assertion with no support. (You don't know much about neuro-science do you ?)
4. Still no definition of what you're even talking about.
(Don't even think you came up with this one. It's well-known from Greek Philosophy, and it has a name.
5. Solipcism has been debunked. There are ways to verify what humans say are their experiences.

I'm pretty sure that he said several times that the god described in the Bible cannot logically exist. Why are you dogs barking?

[Vera]

What perfectly just and merciful godling would create Hell simply to punish those whose only wrong might only be that they don't worship said god?

[...]

The internal contradictions of the Abrahamic god pretty much mark such a god as a human creation. I

This really can't be quoted often enough:

[Bucky Ball]

Gentlemen ... DISproofs.
He says he can *prove* there is no god.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

LOL
Goodness, my ... aren't we impressed with ourself.
Copyrighted no less.

Such rubbish. You're obviously a rank amateur.
Your' "airtight" is as leaky as a sieve. No one here will even think of using such nonsense.

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

You haven't even defined what you're talking about.
Many theists (Christians) tell us they have the gift of faith. It's not about "proofs", and it certainly is not about disproofs.  

You have not defined a "Biblical type" god. (There are many gods in the Bible, including Yahweh's wife).
You've made the very same fundamental error theists make in trying to "prove" their deities.
You have not named which of the many logics you are using, AND you have not demonstrated that the logic you use applies to the subject at hand.  
In fact you know nothing about the environment they might exist in. As such, you can say nothing at all about them, and you certainly cannot apply your unnamed logic to a system you know nothing about. In fact all you know about is about 5% of this universe. You probably couldn't even generalize about that.

1. Your opinion. Supported with nothing. Dismissed.


2. Wrong. Merely your opinion. A being which wants to test your #3, could and might do it, if they *really* had *free will* (which you have not defined.
3. Completely 110 % false. (See the thread here on Free Will). Again, merely a assertion with no support. (You don't know much about neuro-science do you ?)
4. Still no definition of what you're even talking about.
(Don't even think you came up with this one. It's well-known from Greek Philosophy, and it has a name.
5. Solipcism has been debunked. There are ways to verify what humans say are their experiences.

I'm pretty sure that he said several times that the god described in the Bible cannot logically exist. Why are you dogs barking?

Because, just as theists use "logic' to prove their gods, this one thinks he can do the same, only the opposite.
He has not demonstrated that logic applies to the gods, or how has he decided which system of logic he wants to employ.
All his analogies and assertions are human conceptions ... slapped onto deities. He comes to a different conclusion, but it's the SAME faulty method.

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, a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition.

A self-contradictory definition he fails to provide.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

Yours, and every other god ever invented by the human imagination down through history.

Logic is the science that evaluates arguments. ... A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener.

Let's hear your "premise."

LOL
Goodness, my ... aren't we impressed with ourself.
Copyrighted no less.

Such rubbish. You're obviously a rank amateur.
Your' "airtight" is as leaky as a sieve. No one here will even think of using such nonsense.

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

You haven't even defined what you're talking about.
Many theists (Christians) tell us they have the gift of faith. It's not about "proofs", and it certainly is not about disproofs.  

You have not defined a "Biblical type" god. (There are many gods in the Bible, including Yahweh's wife).
You've made the very same fundamental error theists make in trying to "prove" their deities.
You have not named which of the many logics you are using, AND you have not demonstrated that the logic you use applies to the subject at hand.  
In fact you know nothing about the environment they might exist in. As such, you can say nothing at all about them, and you certainly cannot apply your unnamed logic to a system you know nothing about. In fact all you know about is about 5% of this universe. You probably couldn't even generalize about that.

1. Your opinion. Supported with nothing. Dismissed.
2. Wrong. Merely your opinion. A being which wants to test your #3, could and might do it, if they *really* had *free will* (which you have not defined.
3. Completely 110 % false. (See the thread here on Free Will). Again, merely a assertion with no support. (You don't know much about neuro-science do you ?)
4. Still no definition of what you're even talking about.
(Don't even think you came up with this one. It's well-known from Greek Philosophy, and it has a name.
5. Solipcism has been debunked. There are ways to verify what humans say are their experiences.

I'm pretty sure that he said several times that the god described in the Bible cannot logically exist. Why are you dogs barking?

What perfectly just and merciful godling would create Hell simply to punish those whose only wrong might only be that they don't worship said god?
Further, according to the Bible, the Abrahamic god himself created evil. Doesn't sound like a perfectly-good being to me.
The internal contradictions of the Abrahamic god pretty much mark such a god as a human creation. If you can defeat evil but don't do it, how good are you, really?

Are YOU not barking ?

[julep]

Woof!  

At best, you’ve provided some evidence that the bible god is an unreliable narrator who doesn’t conform to human ethics or expectations. 

I agree that if that god existed, it wouldn’t be worthy of worship, but you haven’t disproved its existence. 

However, welcome to the forum.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

[Minimalist]

The moment some religitard starts whining about logic I'm reminded of shit like this.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol...arguments/

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

<yawn>

[Dom]

Holy cow. The dude is NOT a theist, the opposite.

You guys have a strange way of welcoming another atheist to the community.



So, you don't agree with they way he presented things. Why plunge into attack mode?

Welcome to the forum, John. It would be a good thing if you posted a welcome thread first, and let everyone get to know you as a person.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

1.) Good beings do not freely desire to be worshiped. 

A lot of celebrities would disagree with you.

Do you turn to celebrities as a standard of "good?!?"

[jerry mcmasters]

[squints across the saloon at the new guy, spits tobacco juice, fondles ivory handled six shooter] Somebody tell me if he is fer us or agin us...

[jerry mcmasters]

ps Howdy JJ

[JohnJubinsky]

Woof!  

At best, you’ve provided some evidence that the bible god is an unreliable narrator who doesn’t conform to human ethics or expectations. 

I agree that if that god existed, it wouldn’t be worthy of worship, but you haven’t disproved its existence. 

However, welcome to the forum.  I hope you enjoy your time here.

I have shown that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition and, therefore, cannot exist as defined. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum.

[Minimalist]

Atheists usually deal in facts.  Theists try to twist their balls into a pretzel with "logic."