Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[jerry mcmasters]

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 he also said this:

There are multiple premises that are not expressly stated because doing so would make the disproofs unnecessarily harder to follow.

Or; "I can make myself invisible but only when nobody's looking".

What about the other 75 or so sentences expressly attempting to disprove the biblical god?  Did that one convoluted nugget tip you off that he's actually a theist?

[Inkubus]

I looked up John Jubinsky on Google.  He was a lawyer in Hawaii.


He's dead.

Was it anything serious?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 he also said this:

There are multiple premises that are not expressly stated because doing so would make the disproofs unnecessarily harder to follow.

Or; "I can make myself invisible but only when nobody's looking".

Yet he's already cut that corner. Forest, trees, etc, etc.

Communications are aided by focusing on understanding the larger point rather than trying to find fault in details which aren't actually relevant.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

The premises that I used, although not expressly stated, are self-eviident. You have the right to disagree with them.

Fail, and fail again.
They may be "self-evident" to you, but no one else even knows what they are.
Your assumption that everyone accepts what, to you, is "self-evident" betrays your level of ignorance and naivete.
In no world except the tiny little one you apparently live in, does that crap fly as an argument.
BTW, you STILL have not defined the god(s) you're talking about.
You clearly know nothing about the Bible. The god of the Bible was said to be incomprehensible. How is it, your god of the Bible is, and you seem to know a great deal about it ?
If you can't state them, you don't have any. You're just a really lazy debater.
No one ever has come here with this particular line of bullshit.
Are you like 12 ? It's self evident you never ever debated or argued a topic with anyone.

In fact, your "self-evident" shit, is a fallacy. And it even has a name.
https://www2.humboldt.edu/act/HTML/tests...0incorrect.
"SELF EVIDENT TRUTHS (appeal to beliefs): arguing that a claim should be accepted based on evidence that is not presented, but is asserted to be well known or obvious, when the information is either not well known or is incorrect."

Grow up. Maybe you could join the debate club when you get to high school, and learn how this really works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
"A logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question). You really have no clue how this works, what your premises are, and what your spoken and unspoken assumptions are, do you ?

You haven't even begun to tell us which logic system you chose to use, and how it is you determined that one was the appropriate one for proving things about the gods ?

[Cheerful Charlie]

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>

The greatest God that can be conceived is the God that is all powerful creates the metaphysical necessities, math, logic, morality (as per Descartes) and is perfectly, morally good (again, as per Descartes).  This greatest of all imaginable Gods would naturally eliminate all moral evil.  That God could bend logic to have any state of affairs God wants.  That is to eliminate all moral evil.

There is moral evil.  The greatest imaginable God, as per Anslem, does not in fact exist.

So much for Anselm's ontological proof.

[SYZ]

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.

Firstly mate, welcome to the forum.      

I can easily disprove the existence of God or gods.  Such a belief in their real-world
existence would obviously require a belief in supernatural entities and paranormal
phenomena.  Neither of these notions have ever been supported with empirical evidence,
and can therefore be dismissed as untenable.

Ergo, God and/or gods do not exist.

I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your lengthy comment here in proposing
some logical disproofs of the existence of supernatural entities, but in my opinion such a
lengthy discourse was unnecessary—as 99.99% of our membership already dismisses the
notions of gods.     You're preaching to the choir.

You may like to answer this—as you see yourself as a master of logic:  Can you disprove the
existence of leprechauns, bearing in mind the eye-witness accounts of people claiming to
have seen them in Ireland, over several generations?

—I'm an ignostic, but call myself an atheist just to make things a bit simpler.

[PS: there's no need to reformat your text.]

[Percie]

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

That's a premise.

It's an unsupported premise, and so arguments drawn from it are not valid, but it is a premise, and he led off with it.

[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.

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.

No, you haven’t. The bible doesn’t provide a definition of its god.  It provides descriptions, and the bible god talks about himself, but the god could be lying.  A god could lie and break its promises yet still have the power to bring things into existence and set up the eternal punishments of heaven and hell.  You’ve chiefly developed moral critiques of the bible god’s character, which I agree is villainous.

[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.

Firstly mate, welcome to the forum.      

I can easily disprove the existence of God or gods.  Such a belief in their real-world
existence would obviously require a belief in supernatural entities and paranormal
phenomena.  Neither of these notions have ever been supported with empirical evidence,
and can therefore be dismissed as untenable.

Ergo, God and/or gods do not exist.

I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your lengthy comment here in proposing
some logical disproofs of the existence of supernatural entities, but in my opinion such a
lengthy discourse was unnecessary—as 99.99% of our membership already dismisses the
notions of gods.     You're preaching to the choir.

You may like to answer this—as you see yourself as a master of logic:  Can you disprove the
existence of leprechauns, bearing in mind the eye-witness accounts of people claiming to
have seen them in Ireland, over several generations?

—I'm an ignostic, but call myself an atheist just to make things a bit simpler.

[PS: there's no need to reformat your text.]

Thanks for the welcome. I presented the disproofs so that atheists might be better armed to defend themselves against theists. The disproofs are founded in the fact that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition. If a leprechaun has a self-contradictory definition I think I could disprove their existence also.

[JohnJubinsky]

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

That's a premise.

It's an unsupported premise, and so arguments drawn from it are not valid, but it is a premise, and he led off with it.

It is certainly a premise but it is not unsupported. That is, good beings are thought of as being egoless so how could a good being freely desire to be worshiped? This question very strongly supports the premise.

[Percie]

It is certainly a premise but it is not unsupported. That is, good beings are thought of as being egoless 

Some people think that, but it's not a universal sentiment.

[JohnJubinsky]

It is certainly a premise but it is not unsupported. That is, good beings are thought of as being egoless 

Some people think that, but it's not a universal sentiment.

My experience has been that by far the vast majority of people think that.

[SYZ]

...Some people think that, but it's not a universal sentiment.

Just as some people believe in God and/or gods, but...

In Australia in 2003, 68.1% of the population described themselves as Christian.   As of 2020,
that was down to 44.0%.   Additionally, the proportion of Australians who describe themselves
as having no religion has risen from 26.0% in 2003 to 45.5% in 2020.

—Roy Morgan Single Source, Finding #8664, 23 March 2021.  

We have the bible-bashers on the run folks!     

[Percie]

My experience has been that by far the vast majority of people think that.

As I said earlier, a lot of celebrities would disagree with you.

Maybe you think none of those people are good. I'm not prepared to go that far.

[Percie]

This is LGBT Pride Month. I take it you think that no one participating is a good being.

[Percie]

You seem to have a bit of an ego yourself:

https://john-jubinsky-12.webself.net/

ETA: BTW I'm also fond of Myers-Briggs types and am also an INTJ.

ETA: Hadn't done a test in at least 15 years. Just took two and now I'm showing as INTP.

[Bucky Ball]

Thanks for the welcome. I presented the disproofs so that atheists might be better armed to defend themselves against theists. The disproofs are founded in the fact that a Biblical type god has a self-contradictory definition. If a leprechaun has a self-contradictory definition I think I could disprove their existence also.

Too bad you've failed to provide whatever that definition is, you *claim* you have
All you have is a series of unsupported assertions. They aren't *even* premises.
Whatever this bullshit is, it's not "disproofs". Many beings we know of can be described in ways that are "contradictory",
and have characteristics that seem to be contradictory. Yet they exist. One of your foundational assumptions (which you refuse to even discuss) is obviously false.
This crap is of no help to atheists, despite the fact that you, yet another, suffering from Dunning-Krueger, think it's worth copyrighting. LOLOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

Are you always kind ? Are you always angry ? Are you always loving ?
Seems by your assumptions, you don't exist.
How do you know the gods are required to follow your assertions ?
This lame shit is supposed to help atheists ?

[Bucky Ball]

It is certainly a premise but it is not unsupported. That is, good beings are thought of as being egoless 

Some people think that, but it's not a universal sentiment.

My experience has been that by far the vast majority of people think that.

That would be the ad populum fallacy.

In fact in many fields it takes quite a bit of "ego" to be successful, and I know of no one who denigrates the personal qualities that make for success.
Having an "ego" (which you have not defined) is essential in most of the performing arts, many of the sciences etc etc etc.
It is entirely unsupported. You provided no support. Support in an argument does not mean "it's my opinion".
Support is data, statistics, expert findings. You provide nothing.

[Aliza]

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.

A teacher desires to teach for the benefit of the student. Their hope is that the student will learn, improve themselves, and eventually carry their own weight. It would be inappropriate for the teacher to graduate the student to the next level if they are unable to do the work, so teachers test their students. Test questions may contain curve balls or incorrect answers to see if the student will take the bait or if they can apply the skills they were taught to arrive at the correct answer. Some tests are also designed to ensure that students do not cheat off one another with slightly different questions. The temptation to cheat can be very strong, but the presence of deterrents, curve balls, or tempting short cuts are not in and of themselves evil. 

Oh, and I think even the Christian OT version of G-d has the deity saying that he created evil and is evil as much as he is good. It seems like it's popular belief that the Christian god is all good and omni-benevolent, but if you dig up his old Tweets, you'll see a different story to the Christian god.

[Dānu]

I'm just going to say that I applaud the effort, but these proofs are rather weak. Most of them require conceiving of certain characteristics in certain ways which are not explicitly assented to by those who posit the god in question, presumably the Christian one. These proofs wouldn't apply to some other Gods. There was a selection in a book I once read that argued that God cannot be virtuous because exhibiting virtue requires the ability to fail to be virtuous; to be virtuous if that's all you can be is not virtuous. But it's not at all clear that the Christian god needs to be virtuous in this sense. And getting Christians to agree to it after showing them the consequences of assuming it is unlikely to be fruitful. A couple of avenues exist for refutation. First, that what you say about the requirements of these traits is not true. Second, that it isn't required of God to have these traits in the manner you specify. Third is the argument about God's traits generally, being that our understanding of the traits God possesses is an anthropomorphism, it is an analogy to these traits in humans. But God is not human, so these traits are only analogous to the traits of God. In some ways, God's traits may behave just like ours, in other ways not. In short, I don't think the mouse is going to remain caught in your trap for long; he'll take your cheese and scurry away.

A couple more examples. I have an argument that suggests that God cannot be the creator of the universe if he is timeless, and an actual infinite is impossible. These are two things that Christians have readily asserted in the past. Sounds like a strong proof, no? After turning it over in my mind a while, I realized that it wasn't airtight, as it depended upon common but not definitively proven assumptions about how time might be bounded. This led me to realize that it's useful for undermining the cosmological argument, but it wasn't a definitive proof against God. Theologians have been at this a long time. And some of them are pretty clever. It's easy to not see an escape route if you're the one who invented the trap, but the real test is to let a mouse encounter it, and see what happens. Exposing it to others, and absorbing their criticisms, is the acid test.

For what it's worth, I have an argument against the existence of God which only depends on God being omniscient, good, and free will implying the ability to have done otherwise. I think it's a solid argument, but then it hasn't been exposed to the elements.

Ultimately I don't think proofs are the way to go. They're too easily dismissed and don't really address the reasons why people believe.

[Alan V]

There are varying definitions and arguments for God, and their are varying atheistic refutations of those definitions and arguments. Specific refutations don't work for all God-concepts.

Implicit in what John wrote was a certain God-concept, and some of what he wrote works just fine for that specific concept.

The real problem is that theists keep changing their definitions so that they remain unconvinced by any one refutation, even though the God-concepts they move between are themselves incompatible. They haven't yet realized the need for logical consistency.

[JohnJubinsky]

There are varying definitions and arguments for God, and their are varying atheistic refutations of those definitions and arguments.  Specific refutations don't work for all God-concepts.

Implicit in what John wrote was a certain God-concept, and some of what he wrote works just fine for that specific concept.

The real problem is that theists keep changing their definitions so that they remain unconvinced by any one refutation, even though the God-concepts they move between are themselves incompatible.  They haven't yet realized the need for logical consistency.

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.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

Since you never ever provided the definition of the god you're talking about, it's pointless to continue with these irrelevant points.
Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that any god wants to hold anyone "in prostration" ? No. You can't even post a textual reference.
Your point is meaningless, as there is nowhere in the texts called the "Bible", that says that. You made it up.
Just like you made up/invented most of the things you say about this god.

Your present values may be what you claim about a god,
but being an ignorant about history in general, cultural history, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, etc etc
disqualifies you from this discussion. Your personal present ("self-evident" ... LOL) opinions are determinative of nothing.

[JohnJubinsky]

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.

Since you never ever provided the definition of the god you're talking about, it's pointless to continue with these irrelevant points.
Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that any god wants to hold anyone "in prostration" ? No. You can't even post a textual reference.  
Your point is meaningless, as there is nowhere in the texts called the "Bible", that says that. You made it up.
Just like you made up/invented most of the things you say about this god.  

Your present values may be what you claim about a god,
but being an ignorant about history in general, cultural history, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, etc etc  
disqualifies you from this discussion. Your personal present ("self-evident" ... LOL) opinions are determinative of nothing.

The first commandment in the Bible says a Biblical type god wants to hold others in prostration. Moreover, the definition of a Biblical type god that I used in the disproofs is that of a god that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

Since you never ever provided the definition of the god you're talking about, it's pointless to continue with these irrelevant points.
Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that any god wants to hold anyone "in prostration" ? No. You can't even post a textual reference.  
Your point is meaningless, as there is nowhere in the texts called the "Bible", that says that. You made it up.
Just like you made up/invented most of the things you say about this god.  

Your present values may be what you claim about a god,
but being an ignorant about history in general, cultural history, Comparative Mythology, World Religions, etc etc  
disqualifies you from this discussion. Your personal present ("self-evident" ... LOL) opinions are determinative of nothing.

The first commandment in the Bible says a Biblical type god wants to hold others in prostration. Moreover, the definition of a Biblical type god that I used in the disproofs is that of a god that is at least all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and freely wants to be worshiped by others.

Wrong again.

I am the Lord thy God! Thou shalt have no other gods before me!

Nothing about "prostration". Do you even know what the word means ?
Apparently not.
Commandment #1 is about the "covenant" the Hebrews made with one of the gods, (the god of war), (they were not monotheistic, they were monolateralist polytheists) ...
that they would worship only him, in exchange for help in battle. You actually never took even one class on the Bible, or the history of the period did you ?
And in fact, it actually leaves room for other gods, as long as Yahweh is first, (which was how it worked ... he had a wife, and they worshipped her also).

For you to make a *claim* concerning a "Biblical type god", you need to reference the texts that demonstrate the Bible says what you *claim* it says.
Then you get to reference scholars who actually support that the texts are saying what you *claim* it says.

You STILL have in no way supported the concept that your personal opinions about gods, and what they should or should not be, ... is, or ought to be a standard for anything.
All you're doing is "projeceting", and then claiming you proved something.

Philosophers and thinkers have been attempting to disprove the gods for thousands of years.
There are still billions of theists.
Why is it you actually think any of this baloney is somehow original ?
Atheists don't need "help". You don't actually, for one second, think theists would find this "stuff", based on nothing but your personal opinions, ... convincing, do you ?