John, I wish I could say that everything written here makes sense to me, but it doesn't. I don't read or speak "philosophy" very well. Please tell me if I have distilled and understood the main points.
selflessness, not egotism;
does not seek worship, narcissists do;
seeks to inspire others, not prostrate them;
love has no double standard.
Accordingly, fully informed and free subscription to the Biblical god concept is unconscionable.
Consequently, it is incongruous with meaningful development even apart from the self-contradictory nature of the Biblical god concept.
subscription to the Biblical god concept should be held repudiated not only in that
1. it involves a self-contradictory notion
2. it cannot in full knowledge and goodness of motive be freely enacted.
The first thing that the disproof does is demonstrate that the Biblical god concept is self-contradictory on its face. Remember that the concept is one of a being perfect in goodness that demands to be worshiped. The disproof begins by demonstrating that a being supposedly perfect in goodness that demands to be worshiped cannot exist in reality because those two qualities contradict each other. It uses Descartes' time tested definition of a being to do this. Remember that Descartes said: 'I think therefore I am but how do I know any of my perceptions are valid?' That is, very strictly speaking, it is impossible for us as mere perceivers to know whether any of our perceptions are anything more than part of a dream world that it is our nature to live in. As such, if someone (such as a Biblical type god) comes along and demands that we acknowledge absolutely his existence (in the form of demanding to be worshiped or any other) he is demanding that we do the impossible. Of course demanding that others do the impossible amounts to behaving in a manner that is less than good. However, at the same time a Biblical type god is supposed to be perfect in goodness. Therefore, the concept of a Biblical type god necessitates the self-contradictory notion of a being perfect in goodness behaving in a manner that is less than good. Consequently, the very definition of a Biblical type god is self-contradictory and, as such, a Biblical type god cannot exist in reality.
The disproof further argues that, because we as mere perceivers cannot know whether our perceptions validly reflect any external reality that there might be, we cannot achieve true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) through our interpretations of them. Accordingly it argues that, as such, true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) can only be achieved through the internally verifiable degree of effort that we make in attempting to accomplish our objectives. From this it continues that because true personal satisfaction in effort is possible only in good motive true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) must be subject to the personal conscience.
Finally, it proposes that, because love is founded in selflessness and the desire to inspire others rather than egotism and the desire to hold them prostrate, independently from our perceiver nature, the demand to be worshiped is unconscionable. Then using that true personal satisfaction (and therefore meaningful development) cannot be separated from the personal conscience, it concludes that, in the interest of true personal satisfaction, the perception of anyone making the unconscionable demand to be worshiped must be held repudiated. In this any supposed Biblical god must be held repudiated whether its characteristics are otherwise self-contradictory or not.
John, thanks for the rewording for me. You make sense.
1. A perfect god as defined in the bible contradicts with a god that demands worship.
2. We, as human beings, have imperfect perception, therefore need reason and personal conscience.
3. Love from obligation is unconscionable and worthy of being repudiated.