John Jubinsky The concept of the Biblical god is fundamental to the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions. In this it is subscribed to by a multitude of people in every social class on a world-wide basis. Their subscription to it and the associated scriptures generates for them a system of beliefs to which they resort in their introspective considerations, social interactions and creative endeavors. In good faith most attempt to circumvent the differences between scientific evidence and literal interpretation of Biblical chapter and verse. With no malice toward them, without intending to be an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and only in the interest of enlightenment to the good the purpose of the following presentation is to demonstrate a purely logical nullification of the Biblical god concept. That is, it is meant to logically establish that a Biblical type god does not exist. The argument 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 nullification 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 absurd. Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is absurd. As set forth in the introduction there is no vindictiveness in this writing. It is only for enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that meaningful development as the entities that 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. These afford fulfillment in effort independently from perception of result. John Jubinsky MA –Mathematics, CPA 26 D Oak Grove Drive Baltimore, MD USA