Disproof(s) of Christian God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2015, 12:36 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:44 AM by Hafnof.)
Disproof(s) of Christian God
Proof by contradiction. This is just formalising some things already well covered on the forum.

Definition:
- Let Hell be the set of afterlives that include eternal suffering
- Let Heaven be the set of afterlives that do not include eternal suffering
- Let God be the Christian god
- Let non-believers be the set of humans who do not accept God.

Premises:
- 1 The Bible records God's actions and commands
- 2 The Bible appears to include actions and commands attributed to God of genocide, rape, and torture
- 3 The most moral entities are the least capable of accepting genocide, rape, and torture.
- 4 All humans to heaven or hell
- 5 Under God's law heaven is closed to non-believers
- 6 God is not immoral.
The premises above describe defining characteristics of God. Discarding 1, 4, 5 or 6 would describe a different god concept.

Premise 1: The Bible records God's actions and commands
Premise 2: The Bible appears to include actions and commands attributed to God of genocide, rape, and torture
Lemma 1: God's actions and commands appear to include genocide, rape, and torture.

Premise 3: The most moral entities are the least capable of accepting genocide, rape, and torture.
Lemma 1: God's actions and commands appear to include genocide, rape, and torture.
Lemma 2: The most moral entities are the least capable of accepting God.

Premise 4: All humans to heaven or hell
Premise 5: Under God's law heaven is closed to non-believers
Lemma 3: Under God's law all non-believers are subjected to an afterlife of eternal suffering

Lemma 2: The most moral entities are the least capable of accepting God.
Lemma 3: Under God's law all non-believers are subjected to an afterlife of eternal suffering
Lemma 4: Under God's law the most moral entities are the most likely to be subjected to an afterlife of eternal suffering.

Premise 5: Even assuming one can accept the acts attributable to God as moral, every moral entity must accept that that sending the most moral entities to an afterlife of eternal suffering is in fact immoral.
Lemma 4: Under God's law the most moral entities are the most likely to be subjected to an afterlife of eternal suffering.
Lemma 5: God is, in fact, immoral.

Premise 6: God is not immoral.
Lemma 5: God is, in fact, immoral.
Conclusion: The premises are inconsistent. Therefore the god concept outlined in the premises does not exist.

Notes:
- Universalism discards premises 4 and 5, so is not disproven.
- Calvinism discards premise 6, so is not disproven.

So, any thoughts? Does anyone else have some semi-formal proofs to throw around?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 12:47 AM
RE: Disproof(s) of Christian God
well anything that has attributes that contradict each other cannot exist simply by the mere fact that there exists a contradictions

god is always moral but is shown to commit genocide.... these are contradictory and thus cannot be attributed to the same entity, they can exist in isolation but not together
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 01:35 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 01:45 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Disproof(s) of Christian God
True, but I think I show above that even the appearance of god commanding immoral acts combined with a standard model of hell implies that God doesn't exist. Often it is possible for a theist to convince themselves that the acts and commands recorded in their bible are morally justifiable. But can a theist really argue that God can morally send someone to hell who rejects the God proposition on moral grounds? I think that is a distinct and more difficult proposition to defend... although if one can defend the first one can likely rationalise away the second. Let's see what the responses look like Wink

Some further background: My parents have known for some time that I am an atheist. At dinner the other night my mother for the first time pressed me on what I found objectionable or unlikely in Christianity, and the above is a formalisation of the gist of my response. I provisionally reject God based on apparent immoral acts reported in the Bible, especially in the old testament. Having provisionally rejected God in this manner I find that God thinks anyone who is more moral than he or even really seriously ponders the morality or otherwise of God should suffer eternal punishment. That is such a perverse outcome that the combination of "God's evil" and the heaven proposition makes the salvation message morally intolerable on essentially every level.

You must in fact accept something morally intolerable to be "saved", making Christianity a system so diametrically opposed to right moral thought that is profoundly strange that so many do good in the name of Christ and attribute good to the name of Christ.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
10-05-2015, 02:36 AM
RE: Disproof(s) of Christian God
(10-05-2015 01:35 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  True, but I think I show above that even the appearance of god commanding immoral acts combined with a standard model of hell implies that God doesn't exist. Often it is possible for a theist to convince themselves that the acts and commands recorded in their bible are morally justifiable. But can a theist really argue that God can morally send someone to hell who rejects the God proposition on moral grounds? I think that is a distinct and more difficult proposition to defend... although if one can defend the first one can likely rationalise away the second. Let's see what the responses look like Wink

Some further background: My parents have known for some time that I am an atheist. At dinner the other night my mother for the first time pressed me on what I found objectionable or unlikely in Christianity, and the above is a formalisation of the gist of my response. I provisionally reject God based on apparent immoral acts reported in the Bible, especially in the old testament. Having provisionally rejected God in this manner I find that God thinks anyone who is more moral than he or even really seriously ponders the morality or otherwise of God should suffer eternal punishment. That is such a perverse outcome that the combination of "God's evil" and the heaven proposition makes the salvation message morally intolerable on essentially every level.

You must in fact accept something morally intolerable to be "saved", making Christianity a system so diametrically opposed to right moral thought that is profoundly strange that so many do good in the name of Christ and attribute good to the name of Christ.

It's not hard to be convinced that acts of god are moral, if one think that whatever god do is moral, though I'm not sure how popular such line of thought is. As for sending to hell if everything that god does is moral then even sending someone to hell cause he disagree with god morals would be moral, wouldn't it?

As for evilness of OT (non-existing) god is kinda innocent of this, he only done what writes made him to do. One could say he was just following the orders. But to be more serious from modern perspective god does not seem to be very moral, but back then it was nothing so bad I think, especially if one remember that idea of hell wasn't always there. Hebrews believd in Sheol if I recall corectly.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: Disproof(s) of Christian God
(10-05-2015 01:35 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  True, but I think I show above that even the appearance of god commanding immoral acts combined with a standard model of hell implies that God doesn't exist. Often it is possible for a theist to convince themselves that the acts and commands recorded in their bible are morally justifiable. But can a theist really argue that God can morally send someone to hell who rejects the God proposition on moral grounds? I think that is a distinct and more difficult proposition to defend... although if one can defend the first one can likely rationalise away the second. Let's see what the responses look like Wink

Some further background: My parents have known for some time that I am an atheist. At dinner the other night my mother for the first time pressed me on what I found objectionable or unlikely in Christianity, and the above is a formalisation of the gist of my response. I provisionally reject God based on apparent immoral acts reported in the Bible, especially in the old testament. Having provisionally rejected God in this manner I find that God thinks anyone who is more moral than he or even really seriously ponders the morality or otherwise of God should suffer eternal punishment. That is such a perverse outcome that the combination of "God's evil" and the heaven proposition makes the salvation message morally intolerable on essentially every level.

You must in fact accept something morally intolerable to be "saved", making Christianity a system so diametrically opposed to right moral thought that is profoundly strange that so many do good in the name of Christ and attribute good to the name of Christ.

You can probably reduce it down to the idea of atonement, this is fundamentally unjust and immoral. Someone else gets punished for the acts of other people, then it doesn't absolve anyone from these acts/sins unless you believe. The penalty for not believing is eternal punishment.

If atonement is supposed to be a "New Covenant", it's moved moral culpability from the individual engaging in animal sacrifice for forgiveness/eternal reward, to moral culpability for not believing in a universal sacrifice.

It detaches actions from eternal reward, it's belief, not morality that determines reward/punishment.

So what does that illustrate about this deity? Acceptance/belief in the efficacy of a scapegoat is the most important factor involved in whether you receive the ultimate punishment. Not just appropriate punishment, but maximal punishment.

It would seem atonement is a system rigged for the adoration/obedience for this god, not for any reward for moral acts.

So subjugation is the ultimate good under the system of atonement and maximal punishment for those that do not subjugate themselves to this system.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: