John Jubinsky
2010-02-04 19:07:41 UTC
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
our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is
scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this,
meaningful development as the entities 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
***@yahoo.com
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
our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is
scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this,
meaningful development as the entities 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
***@yahoo.com