The only disproof of god that needs concern anyone is that there is no proof of god's existence.

(August 28, 2018 at 1:26 am)negatio Wrote: Thank You, Princess. Negatio.

I accept your concession of intellectual paucity.  Now go back to watching your Disney videos, as apparently that is where you get your information on females.

Quote:The only disproof of god that needs concern anyone is that there is no proof of god's existence.

This statement has a beautiful, far out, appearance. However, mere absence of proof cannot, does not, constitute a disproof. A disproof of God as we currently see him would have to, in fact, be constructed, in language. Disproof does  not simply reside in absence of proof.  Thank you Kit ! Negatio.

---

Quote:The language employed isn't the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents.

No shit, Dick Tracy ! If I were to take a guess, while trying to put myself in the shoes of Khemikal's idiosyncratic perspectival view, to pursue what he thinks he sees in my OP, I, on first try, at guessing what serious problem(s) Khemikall's consciousness is imagining, I would immediately leap into describing the most outrageous of possible possibilities reqarding what those problems are; I, personally, think one could be: So boldly asserting that my weird fucking language is efficient to accomplish a theoretical destruction of the very most fundamental and mistaken presupposition employed by doctors of jurisprudence/jurisprudence...right, it is not the weird fucking language, it is the devastation which a successful employment of the language could wreak within our sociosphere.  An absolute theoretical destruction of jurisprudence could be alike a destructive tidal wave, smashing the fuck out of what we now employ as the very basis of our civilization; yea, that could be a fucking problem Khemikal , no fucking shit ! However, that is how Abraham Lincoln eventually won the Presidency, he destroyed the existing American civilization, and, instituted a religion of law in America...read his biographers...I want to overthrow ontological unintelligibility in the American religion that is law...thereby we Americans might, once again, breathe the sweet air of Liberty via becoming reflectively ontologically free, i.e., by learning how human freedom actually transpires via human consciousness, not, via law....

Meh, it might just be that you're wrong, is all?

FWIW, I don't think that the law is particularly good at what it does either - but since we have a different intended outcome and vastly different utility for law, a one-to-one criticism of a god's ontological status on those grounds isn't really possible, nor..for that matter, is the god in question (allegedly, lol) any more or less ignorant of those facts on the ground than we are.

If the purpose of law is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the wheat being those who are at least passingly capable of moderating their actions by reference to law, the chaff being those who are not..regardless of this systems inability to turn chaff into wheat - it succeeds. That a god would knowingly do this, similarly, eliminates any possibility of it's being ignorant in that regard.

If what you want to do is change peoples minds about american jurisprudence, stick to that? There's no reason to pretend that it's an ontological disproof of some silly god.

How does one go about disproving an alleged god, anyway? At most one can point out the ludicrously inconsistent traits and behaviours of the Abrahamic deity, and reason that it's not a particularly good role model for setting up a justice system.

At that point you can discard that particular deity, whether or not it actually exists, and focus on the underlying issue: Individuals' desire for justice, grounded in our personal experiences of things that we ourselves deem unjust. Gods just serve a ceremonial role in the process, anyway; it's people who make the actual decisions and implement them.

Quote: There's no reason to pretend that it's an ontological disproof of some silly god.

There is no "pretense" involved.  My disproof of God, i.e., Deity, proceeds by a show of what the single solitary human being's ontological structure is, which is THE path to disproving "God", because "God" absolutely failed to show that he knew fucking shit about how we humans tick.
I have, indeed, achieved a disproof of "God", as we currently deem him to be a Deity who reigns by law...I demonstrate precisely why ''law'' does not, in fact, rule by rule of law...the path to changing perspectives on jurisprudence is through the alleged God, who exercises his purported deity via law...I have to show America, which is radically grounded in their Bible, to the point that it completely, entirely, controls their lives, that their God is entirely wrong in employing a language of law to maintain order among human beings, when, the very original ontological structure of the human being is sufficient to maintain an ordered free civilization, without law...for law is precisely the antithesis of freedom.  Thank you Khemmy. Negatio.

Except that is doesn't..because not only does god contend to have known this in magic book..it's not actually true in real life either. It's an artifact of sartres earlier positions, which he himself found necessary to walk back on reflection.

(I think you may be confusing the us's batshit fundies - radically grounded in their bibles..with the us or us law, emphatically and specifically not grounded in anyone's stupid magic books, btw.)

(August 20, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm)negatio Wrote: Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

(August 20, 2018 at 9:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Godmamn, Astreja, that last was so radically beautifully written, an so right-on. Let me study it for a while, and, after I finish my Disney movie, I promise to get back to you. Thanks. Negatio
Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

(August 28, 2018 at 11:04 am)Astreja Wrote: How does one go about disproving an alleged god, anyway?  At most one can point out the ludicrously inconsistent traits and behaviours of the Abrahamic deity, and reason that it's not a particularly good role model for setting up a justice system.

At that point you can discard that particular deity, whether or not it actually exists, and focus on the underlying issue:  Individuals' desire for justice, grounded in our personal experiences of things that we ourselves deem unjust.  Gods just serve a ceremonial role in the process, anyway; it's people who make the actual decisions and implement them.

I still do not understand why you feel that the nihilation which you believe grants us radical freedom is incompatible with the view that men are ably ruled by laws. Given that people do obey laws, in spite of possessing this supposed radical freedom, it would seem you are omitting something.

Secondly, I think you're making an inference about the intentions of God in prescribing laws for men to follow. Retribution is one possible motive for prescribing laws, but since it requires moral desert, it seems this is your primary incompatibility with the supposed nihilative origin of our actions. However there are other potential reasons for prescribing laws which don't contradict this sort of freedom. For example, the goal of laws may be to insure uniformity of conduct by eliminating those whose freedom leads them to violate the laws. Or, it could simply be to remove them from the community to prevent further acts contrary to the substance of said law. Or it could be to provide solace and cohesion to other members of the community. I don't see how any of these aims is at odds with such a nihilatively based freedom, even if such existed (which you haven't really established).

Oh, and as to your use of language, there must exist bridging language which is not dependent on things such as use of ontological jargon or Sartrean neologisms, or else people would not be able to learn these concepts in the first place. So it would seem that your claim that you either cannot use simpler language, or that you would be sacrificing rigor by doing so, seems little more than an affectation.

(August 20, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm)negatio Wrote: Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

(August 20, 2018 at 9:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

(August 28, 2018 at 12:09 pm)negatio Wrote:

(August 20, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Astreja Wrote: What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Godmamn, Astreja, that last was so radically beautifully written, an so right-on. Let me study it for a while, and, after I finish my Disney movie, I promise to get back to you. Thanks. Negatio
Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

(August 28, 2018 at 11:04 am)Astreja Wrote: How does one go about disproving an alleged god, anyway?  At most one can point out the ludicrously inconsistent traits and behaviours of the Abrahamic deity, and reason that it's not a particularly good role model for setting up a justice system.

At that point you can discard that particular deity, whether or not it actually exists, and focus on the underlying issue:  Individuals' desire for justice, grounded in our personal experiences of things that we ourselves deem unjust.  Gods just serve a ceremonial role in the process, anyway; it's people who make the actual decisions and implement them.

How does one go about disproving an alleged god, anyway?  At most one can point out the ludicrously inconsistent traits and behaviours of the Abrahamic deity, and reason that it's not a particularly good role model for setting up a justice system.

At that point you can discard that particular deity, whether or not it actually exists, and focus on the underlying issue:  Individuals' desire for justice, grounded in our personal experiences of things that we ourselves deem unjust.  Gods just serve a ceremonial role in the process, anyway; it's people who make the actual decisions and implement them.
Holy cow,  Astreja, that is some totally right-on and righteous thinking on your part, of course, its all actually people totalizing absolutely everything.  Of course,  precisely, needing "Justice" via that which is deemed unjust, wow, of course, perceived lack justice, as justice is viewed in its ideality from the purely gut level of what we human beings ontologically sense interacting justly with our fellow humans is, determined by an objective/seen/perceived lack of what, in future, justice can become as strictly a function of individual humans acting justly among themselves,  and not doing so via "legal" means, rather, by each persons pretty much natural, ontological feeling for justice. Law is not the mediator between persons, our basic original feeling/desire for justice is our viable path to each person reciprocally treating all others justly, without fucking "law", which "law" is, as it is now structured, an impediment to doing interpersonal justice purely on the basis of our fundamental sense of conducting one' self nobly among others. Yes, wow, Astreja, here you are enunciating the human ontological feel for righteous conduct which does not require God, or, Law, to reign... Thank you. Negatio. I live way rurally and product my electricity at the cost of eighty cents per hour, I am nearly out of fuel, it is the end of the month, money is slimming until I get my Veteran's and Social Security retirements on the 31st, so, I will have to entirely stop having the total blast of interacting with you guys, except, only very very intermittently to see responses, without being able to respond until later....Negatio.