Ontological Disproof of God

[emjay]

Yea, cool emjay. The same level differences came up in a response I made to you last night ,i.e., as the differences in level between brain cells/neurons and consciousness...I had fun saying that perhaps cellular determinist structures underlie free consciousness...Negatio.

On second thought emjay, Perhaps we should be careful not to presuppose that consciousness is not smaller than human cells, yes, of course consciousness viably underlies cells, inhabits cells, directs cells; it must be...I cannot imagine a different consciousness for my sapientality and, for each of billions of cells...perhaps I have billions of consciousnesses, one for each cell !?

I'll leave you to ponder that one yourself If you want to see what my position on consciousness is I suggest reading my Seeing Red thread from a while ago. There you'll see my walls of text in abundance But basically I can't explain my position on consciousness in a few lines of text any more than you can with your position in the OP, so I won't even try... other than to direct you to that thread in case you're interested. That was a very intense discussion that went on for about a month, primarily between me, Khemikal, bennyboy, Jorm, and Neo-Scholastic. It was very insightful for me, but at the same time very intense and tiring, so it's not something I could do everyday, and is therefore one of the reasons I'm backing out of this thread... since it could go the same way

[brewer]

[edit]

It is a radical insult to say that someone needs to teach me effective communication !  I am a radically effective communicator, I just mistakenly presented a revolutionary ontological disproof of Deity, predicated upon nothing, to a forum without training in existential ontology. 

[edit]

I wonder about your ability when it comes to self perception/self awareness. If you are the "radically effective communicator" as you profess, then others would not be addressing your communication skills and you would see more and varied forum member participation in your thread. 

Your entire statement comes off as pretentious and is off putting. Not something you should strive for if you want to have a discussion.

[negatio]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

Yes ! Jormungander, another direct point-blank dead-on hit !  It is absolutely and indubitably correct to impute to me subscription to what you call "radical freedom", I call it "absolute ontological freedom", which is a state of affairs wherein each one of us is absolute ----an absolute freedom-----able at any moment to totally drop everything, and, immediately head-off in a completely fresh direction, if you've got the guts, precisely like Robert De Niro kept repeating saying was absolutely incumbent upon him, given his lifestyle, in the piece of cinema named "Heat".  There is absolutely no basis upon which to disagree here with Neil Mc Cauley, that's it, absolutely, that's the way it simply fucking is----he can instantly secrete nothingness between himself  and any possible situation;  he's an octopus, wham ! a cloud of ink and he's outa here.  Absolutely nothing outside him can even remotely graze his naturally radical freedom, not even the man and his prison...Negatio.

---

[edit]

It is a radical insult to say that someone needs to teach me effective communication !  I am a radically effective communicator, I just mistakenly presented a revolutionary ontological disproof of Deity, predicated upon nothing, to a forum without training in existential ontology. 

[edit]

I wonder about your ability when it comes to self perception/self awareness. If you are the "radically effective communicator" as you profess, then others would not be addressing your communication skills and you would see more and varied forum member participation in your thread. 

Your entire statement comes off as pretentious and is off putting. Not something you should strive for if you want to have a discussion.

Here we go again for the umpteen time !  More argumentum ad hominem !  Leave me fucking out of  it ! Attack my position, not me. Jesus fucking Christ ! Get off my back !  It does not matter what, personally,  I may or may not be !  It does not matter one fucking bit how retarded, ugly, and depraved I am !  In philosophy we focus on positions, not persons,  please.  Thank you. Duane.

[brewer]

---

I wonder about your ability when it comes to self perception/self awareness. If you are the "radically effective communicator" as you profess, then others would not be addressing your communication skills and you would see more and varied forum member participation in your thread. 

Your entire statement comes off as pretentious and is off putting. Not something you should strive for if you want to have a discussion.

Here we go again for the umpteen time !  More argumentum ad hominem !  Leave me fucking out of  it ! Attack my position, not me. Jesus fucking Christ ! Get off my back !  It does not matter what, personally,  I may or may not be !  It does not matter one fucking bit how retarded, ugly, and depraved I am !  In philosophy we focus on positions, not persons,  please.  Thank you. Duane.

Then make your position clear to me, much the same as Jor just did.

Edit: You seem to be able to get your point across very well when you're pissed off.

[negatio]

---

Here we go again for the umpteen time !  More argumentum ad hominem !  Leave me fucking out of  it ! Attack my position, not me. Jesus fucking Christ ! Get off my back !  It does not matter what, personally,  I may or may not be !  It does not matter one fucking bit how retarded, ugly, and depraved I am !  In philosophy we focus on positions, not persons,  please.  Thank you. Duane.

Then make your position clear to me, much the same as Jor just did.

Edit: You seem to be able to get your point across very well when you're pissed off.

No, you make my position clear to yourself by yourself.  I cannot possibly do it for you. I have given my position and, then totally rewritten part of it for the members.  I am writing as clearly as I, as a radically limited human being, at this moment, can.  What I say, even at what appears to be the thickest, hardest, most unbearable juncture thereof, is insightfully crystal clear; totally translucent; ---- some of it is even absolutely original thinking. I have studied radically intently as an ideaologist...I successful wrote my way to a degree in philosophy with straight A's for teachers who stressed and demanded, clarity.  I can do clarity, I do clarity. Now, this is not college. What I am playing here is hardball.  I am undertaking a philosophical/theoretical destruction of our most fundamental religious beliefs, and, of the legalistic foundations of America itself.  My position is cast in a manner fit to survive the most possible insightful attack against it which might happen to be brought against it for centuries to come; for there will be those, like Jormungander,who can,and will,undertake to defeat it.  The OP is written to withstand the slings and arrows of future bright minds, for as long as possible.  The OP is enunciating a radical vision for the future; based upon the most difficult and powerful thought of the past, as exampled by Spinoza; Hegel; Sartre...it is not my thought that is, for the most part, is being presented here; it is Sprioza's; Hegel's; Sartre's, I am standing on their shoulders, and, I have, thanks to the infinite riches contained in Spinoza's dictum, invented at least one absolutely new theoretical construct of my own, i.e., jurisprudential illusion; --- the OP is playing absolute hardball within an absolutely tyrannical sociosphere, wherein men are constantly attempting to enslave others, by "law",
which law is totally and radically an overbearing loose cannon which requires resistance sufficient to tie it down.  Jurisprudence needs a goddamn good fucking swift theoretical kick in the balls, for it is a theoretically and ontologically unintelligible series of practices within the sociosphere, which are suffocating and destroying the originally intended reign of human absolute ontological freedom,in certain regions of human conduct, which original Americans insisted upon having in unmolested fashion.  I am playing theoretical hardball with what is the actual nonsense practiced by American jurisprudence, for the sake of getting it and its fucking nonsense off our backs; it,
jurisprudence, is capable, only, of, on and on and on, doing prohibitive law against human beings, which is making us sick, because it has no real understanding of what a  human being is.  Thank you brewer.  Negatio.

[brewer]

No, you make my position clear to yourself by yourself.  I cannot possibly do it for you. I have given my position and, then totally rewritten part of it for the members.  I am writing as clearly as I, as a radically limited human being, at this moment, can.  What I say, even at what appears to be the thickest, hardest, most unbearable juncture thereof, is insightfully crystal clear; totally translucent; ---- some of it is even absolutely original thinking. I have studied radically intently as an ideaologist...I successful wrote my way to a degree in philosophy with straight A's for teachers who stressed and demanded, clarity.  I can do clarity, I do clarity. Now, this is not college. What I am playing here is hardball.  I am undertaking a philosophical/theoretical destruction of our most fundamental religious beliefs, and, of the legalistic foundations of America itself.  My position is cast in a manner fit to survive the most possible insightful attack against it which might happen to be brought against it for centuries to come; for there will be those, like Jormungander,who can,and will,undertake to defeat it.  The OP is written to withstand the slings and arrows of future bright minds, for as long as possible.  The OP is enunciating a radical vision for the future; based upon the most difficult and powerful thought of the past, as exampled by Spinoza; Hegel; Sartre...it is not my thought that is, for the most part, is being presented here; it is Sprioza's; Hegel's; Sartre's, I am standing on their shoulders, and, I have, thanks to the infinite riches contained in Spinoza's dictum, invented at least one absolutely new theoretical construct of my own, i.e., jurisprudential illusion; --- the OP is playing absolute hardball within an absolutely tyrannical sociosphere, wherein men are constantly attempting to enslave others, by "law",
which law is totally and radically an overbearing loose cannon which requires resistance sufficient to tie it down.  Jurisprudence needs a goddamn good fucking swift theoretical kick in the balls, for it is a theoretically and ontologically unintelligible series of practices within the sociosphere, which are suffocating and destroying the originally intended reign of human absolute ontological freedom,in certain regions of human conduct, which original Americans insisted upon having in unmolested fashion.  I am playing theoretical hardball with what is the actual nonsense practiced by American jurisprudence, for the sake of getting it and its fucking nonsense off our backs; it,
jurisprudence, is capable, only, of, on and on and on, doing prohibitive law against human beings, which is making us sick, because it has no real understanding of what a  human being is.  Thank you brewer.  Negatio.

bold mine

What fundamental religious beliefs are you destructing?

If you want your position to survive for centuries to come do you plan on publishing and/or peer review? 

How are we enslaved by law, by not allowing absolute free will? I think laws are required in a structured society. My position is that your free will stops where my nose starts and that laws prevent that very well.

Is one of your issues with the way the american law/judicial  system applied and practiced? How is it radically overbearing? I have seemed to thrive within that system very well.

[negatio]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

First, Jormungander, you said, given our facticity, we are not, cannot be, radical freedom; i.e., given our physiological being in the world, we cannot be totally and absolutely free, for we are inhibited and circumscribed by our very flesh; therefore, you maintain, Sartre is wrong, and, there can be no radical freedom.  Then, it appears, through the fog of some unclear "this"-writing", that you proceed to describe a certain absolute freedom practiced by divers theologicians/libertarians, whereby they adapt themselves to a world of law, etc..  Do you see the self-inconsistent/contradictory form of flux here,whereby you both posit against, and, then, for, an absolute freedom, and, thereby, ultimately support the position, i.e., Sartre's, which was originally asserted to be mistaken.  Negatio.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is 'radical' your favourite adjective?

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

First, Jormungander, you said, given our facticity, we are not, cannot be, radical freedom; i.e., given our physiological being in the world, we cannot be totally and absolutely free, for we are inhibited and circumscribed by our very flesh; therefore, you maintain, Sartre is wrong, and, there can be no radical freedom.  Then, it appears, through the fog of some unclear "this"-writing", that you proceed to describe a certain absolute freedom practiced by divers theologicians/libertarians, whereby they adapt themselves to a world of law, etc..  Do you see the self-inconsistent/contradictory form of flux here,whereby you both posit against, and, then, for, an absolute freedom, and, thereby, ultimately support the position, i.e., Sartre's, which was originally asserted to be mistaken.  Negatio.

Bloody hell.

I am an atheist. I believe in no god/gods.

Most here are also atheists, believing in no god/gods.

For some reason you think that presenting a broken ontological argument for atheism will convince us all to somehow be more atheist than we already are.

It wont.

[negatio]

What fundamental religious beliefs are you destructing?

Jehovah's mistaken notion that he could efficiently/successfully reign as God, over men,by positing a series of laws, which, he mistakenly thought, would function either to determine man's conduct directly, via the word,or, move men to determine themselves, by law, to act in accordance with law. When, in fact, human conduct does not originate on the basis of given states of affairs like a language of law.

---

No, you make my position clear to yourself by yourself.  I cannot possibly do it for you. I have given my position and, then totally rewritten part of it for the members.  I am writing as clearly as I, as a radically limited human being, at this moment, can.  What I say, even at what appears to be the thickest, hardest, most unbearable juncture thereof, is insightfully crystal clear; totally translucent; ---- some of it is even absolutely original thinking. I have studied radically intently as an ideaologist...I successful wrote my way to a degree in philosophy with straight A's for teachers who stressed and demanded, clarity.  I can do clarity, I do clarity. Now, this is not college. What I am playing here is hardball.  I am undertaking a philosophical/theoretical destruction of our most fundamental religious beliefs, and, of the legalistic foundations of America itself.  My position is cast in a manner fit to survive the most possible insightful attack against it which might happen to be brought against it for centuries to come; for there will be those, like Jormungander,who can,and will,undertake to defeat it.  The OP is written to withstand the slings and arrows of future bright minds, for as long as possible.  The OP is enunciating a radical vision for the future; based upon the most difficult and powerful thought of the past, as exampled by Spinoza; Hegel; Sartre...it is not my thought that is, for the most part, is being presented here; it is Sprioza's; Hegel's; Sartre's, I am standing on their shoulders, and, I have, thanks to the infinite riches contained in Spinoza's dictum, invented at least one absolutely new theoretical construct of my own, i.e., jurisprudential illusion; --- the OP is playing absolute hardball within an absolutely tyrannical sociosphere, wherein men are constantly attempting to enslave others, by "law",
which law is totally and radically an overbearing loose cannon which requires resistance sufficient to tie it down.  Jurisprudence needs a goddamn good fucking swift theoretical kick in the balls, for it is a theoretically and ontologically unintelligible series of practices within the sociosphere, which are suffocating and destroying the originally intended reign of human absolute ontological freedom,in certain regions of human conduct, which original Americans insisted upon having in unmolested fashion.  I am playing theoretical hardball with what is the actual nonsense practiced by American jurisprudence, for the sake of getting it and its fucking nonsense off our backs; it,
jurisprudence, is capable, only, of, on and on and on, doing prohibitive law against human beings, which is making us sick, because it has no real understanding of what a  human being is.  Thank you brewer.  Negatio.

bold mine

What fundamental religious beliefs are you destructing?

If you want your position to survive for centuries to come do you plan on publishing and/or peer review? 

How are we enslaved by law, by not allowing absolute free will? I think laws are required in a structured society. My position is that your free will stops where my nose starts and that laws prevent that very well.

Is one of your issues with the way the american law/judicial  system applied and practiced? How is it radically overbearing? I have seemed to thrive within that system very well.