Jurisdictional Sovereignty: A Consent-Based Critique of Divine Authority

This paper develops a novel philosophical framework for evaluating theological claims of authority by applying consent-based political philosophy to the domain of divine command. Rather than engaging the traditional ontological question of God's existence, I propose a jurisdictional approach that treats the legitimacy of divine authority as analytically separable from questions of divine ontology. Drawing on social contract theory, I argue that the capacity to create rational agents does not inherently generate the moral authority to govern those agents. I term this position jurisdictional sovereignty—the principled refusal to grant legislative power to any entity, regardless of its ontological status or creative role, without demonstrable consent-based legitimacy. This framework is distinguished from atheism (which addresses existence), apatheism (which expresses indifference), and misotheism (which expresses antagonism), offering instead a political evaluation of authority claims. I defend this position against sophisticated theological objections, particularly those emerging from classical theism, and demonstrate its applicability across diverse religious frameworks.The framework has direct implications for political philosophy, grounding bodily sovereignty and public reason requirements without presupposing metaphysical naturalism.