Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

---

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.

Well there is the whole other 96% of humanity who are not american and do not dwell under fucked up american law nor do we think much of it. There is that.

[negatio]

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

Ha ! Dreamer ! Yes, publishing seems an ideal possibility, however, I am not even sure if people read printed works anymore. At this point, to act in pursuit of the possibility of publication would be a radically difficult objective for me to attain, I only have a B.A., which may not give me sufficient credence in the world of publication. Online is good for now. I wanted to cast my writing out into the world; now, I have, via the internet; and, a certain process has perhaps begun, i.e., that process wherein a person submits a theoretical work to the world, and, then, goes through a series of paradigm stages, which I do not clearly recall at the moment, wherein, at first, his theory is absolutely scorned and rejected as absurd and unworthy nonsense; then, it is seen to be radically acceptable the world; then, the persons who originally maintained the absurdity of the theory, claim it as their own !

---

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.

How are we enslaved by law

We can only be so totally inundated with prohibition that we merely begin to suffocate and suffer illness, like committing murder in a courtroom...My absolute original human ontological freedom cannot possibly be lost by me on any wise, however, extant American law does, now, reduce Americans to peons by, e.g., local ordinance ordaining mandatory payment for garbage collection, wherein, upon extended nonpayment, a county attorney will attempt to employ coercion to collect the money, wherein it is promised one's property is subject to lien, for non payment of the perpetual and ongoing garbage fees, (peonage is a state of affairs wherein persons are trapped in perpetual debt), and, the employment of coercion by threat of action at law, in order to hold a person to perform service(s) for payment of the debt, is deemed by extant Federal law to be unlawful attempt to hold persons in peonage, now subsumed under our Thirteenth Amendment, i.e., peonage is now subsumed...
The generator is nigh quitting for a lack of fuel...I must leave off...perhaps tomorrow, when fresh, I can give you clearer response to why law ATTEMPTS to enslave...

---

Is 'radical' your favourite adjective?

Boru

It most certainly appears so.  I'm a Californian.  Radical dude !

Moderator Notice
Woot! I think I got it!

[negatio]

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Well that's essentially what ontology is - to argue something into (or in this case, out of) existence.  To an ontological philosopher, it makes no difference as to whether God exists in any sense of what we think of as 'reality', just as long as a non-refutable argument can be constructed either for or against God (noting that 'non-refutable' doesn't necessarily mean 'true').

In that sense, God is very much like a unicorn.  Never mind that there aren't unicorns, or that there are no fossil unicorns, or that there isn't an ecological niche which can only be filled by unicorns.  As long as I can construct an argument that, on strictly logical grounds, cannot be refuted, unicorns must exist.

Boru

If God is like a Unicorn, and a unicorn does not exist, then I must construct a bullet-proof theory that God, like a Unicorn, does NOT exist.
However, I am being careful not to construct a theory which obviates the possibility that a Deity who somehow
might have created us somehow somewhere is.  Reference the fragment in my OP which speaks about me cast in the image of deity, just not a Christ pseudo-deity, but a Deity who knew what made me tick, or, how I ticked, and, therefore, would not attempt to reign over me by law...that is a deity I could possibly gladly attempt to sketch-out the outlines of by looking at my consciousness, I do enjoy thinking is a consciousness made in the image of a viable Deity.  5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.  
Here I leave myself open to the possibility of describing, in future, what a viable Deity is !  That might be cool..

[negatio]

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.

No, I did not post on this site for the reason you put forth.  I had some thinking I wanted to cast into the world.  After long long reasoning about how to most pertinently place it on the internet I realized, since it is questioning Deity, an Atheist site seemed a viable and pertinent site to employ.  I had no thought of convincing atheists of anything, I was merely attempting to cast my writing into the world. (Atheists may not need be convinced against God, but they may well appreciate a viable theory which sets out a radically new and viable philosophical stance against Deity, with which they can say, finally, this is why....).  Which of you atheists has constructed a theory for the sake of once and for all enunciating precisely why there can be no Deity as Deity is currently thought to be !! I am merely attempting, now, since I am here, and am, thus far, surviving a gauntlet, to possibly avail myself of this cite as a possible means of dialectically running the OP through a gauntlet too, but the members have only just begun to engage my position, not my person, on the theoretical plane.

[Losty]

I fixed as many quotes as I could wrap my mind around. The thread should look much more tidy now. If your post has been edited, it was just to fix the quotes. I left mod notes in the ones I edited. I may or may not decide to give a few more a shot before I go to bed lol.

[Losty]

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

Ha ! Dreamer ! Yes, publishing seems an ideal possibility, however, I am not even sure if people read printed works anymore. At this point, to act in pursuit of the possibility of publication would be a radically difficult objective for me to attain, I only have a B.A., which may not give me sufficient credence in the world of publication. Online is good for now. I wanted to cast my writing out into the world; now, I have, via the internet; and, a certain process has perhaps begun, i.e., that process wherein a person submits a theoretical work to the world, and, then, goes through a series of paradigm stages, which I do not clearly recall at the moment, wherein, at first, his theory is absolutely scorned and rejected as absurd and unworthy nonsense; then, it is seen to be radically acceptable the world; then, the persons who originally maintained the absurdity of the theory, claim it as their own !

---

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.

---

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.

How are we enslaved by law

We can only be so totally inundated with prohibition that we merely begin to suffocate and suffer illness, like committing murder in a courtroom...My absolute original human ontological freedom cannot possibly be lost by me on any wise, however, extant American law does, now, reduce Americans to peons by, e.g., local ordinance ordaining mandatory payment for garbage collection, wherein, upon extended nonpayment, a county attorney will attempt to employ coercion to collect the money, wherein it is promised one's property is subject to lien, for non payment of the perpetual and ongoing garbage fees, (peonage is a state of affairs wherein persons are trapped in perpetual debt), and, the employment of coercion by threat of action at law, in order to hold a person to perform service(s) for payment of the debt, is deemed by extant Federal law to be unlawful attempt to hold persons in peonage, now subsumed under our Thirteenth Amendment, i.e., peonage is now subsumed...
The generator is nigh quitting for a lack of fuel...I must leave off...perhaps tomorrow, when fresh, I can give you clearer response to why law ATTEMPTS to enslave...

---

Is 'radical' your favourite adjective?

Boru

It most certainly appears so.  I'm a Californian.  Radical dude !

Moderator Notice
Woot! I think I got it!

ETA fixed it hehe

[negatio]

an argument that, on strictly logical grounds, cannot be refuted, unicorns must exist

No, not an argument based on logical grounds which cannot be refuted; rather, I must submit argument based on rational ontological grounds, that cannot be defeated, because the description which I must give of a Unicorn must first be an ontologically correct and intelligible description of a Unicorn...I must be able to present an inventory of the Unicorn's several ontological characteristics, and, since I cannot, the argument could not even get off the ground and would never even be the subject of critique...

---

Ha ! Dreamer ! Yes, publishing seems an ideal possibility, however, I am not even sure if people read printed works anymore.  At this  point, to act  in pursuit of the possibility of publication would be a radically difficult objective for me to attain, I only have a B.A., which may not give me sufficient credence in the world of publication.  Online is good for now.  I wanted to cast my writing out into the world; now, I have, via the internet; and, a certain process has perhaps begun, i.e., that process wherein a person submits a theoretical work to the world, and, then, goes through a series of paradigm stages, which I do not clearly recall at the moment, wherein, at first, his theory is absolutely scorned and rejected as absurd and unworthy nonsense; then, it is seen to be radically acceptable the world; then, the persons who originally maintained the absurdity of the theory, claim it as their own !

---

---

---

---

It most certainly appears so.  I'm a Californian.  Radical dude !

My brain is spinning trying to figure out how to fix this one lol.

Losty, Holy Cow, this absolutely blows my mind, you corrected every stupid mistake I made when I did not know what I was doing...incredible...fantastic...my thread looks less like an insane person administers it !  Wow, I cannot possibly thank you enough...I have not been able to see if you fixed all that horrible duplicate stuff that was terrorizing me as well...Thank a Million. Wow.  Negatio.

[Losty]

Losty, Holy Cow, this absolutely blows my mind, you corrected every stupid mistake I made when I did not know what I was doing...incredible...fantastic...my thread looks less like an insane person administers it !  Wow, I cannot possibly thank you enough...I have not been able to see if you fixed all that horrible duplicate stuff that was terrorizing me as well...Thank a Million. Wow.  Negatio.

Hehe I think I got all the duplicates too.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well that's essentially what ontology is - to argue something into (or in this case, out of) existence.  To an ontological philosopher, it makes no difference as to whether God exists in any sense of what we think of as 'reality', just as long as a non-refutable argument can be constructed either for or against God (noting that 'non-refutable' doesn't necessarily mean 'true').

In that sense, God is very much like a unicorn.  Never mind that there aren't unicorns, or that there are no fossil unicorns, or that there isn't an ecological niche which can only be filled by unicorns.  As long as I can construct an argument that, on strictly logical grounds, cannot be refuted, unicorns must exist.

Boru

If God is like a Unicorn, and a unicorn does not exist, then I must construct a bullet-proof theory that God, like a Unicorn, does NOT exist.
However, I am being careful not to construct a theory which obviates the possibility that a Deity who somehow
might have created us somehow somewhere is.  Reference the fragment in my OP which speaks about me cast in the image of deity, just not a Christ pseudo-deity, but a Deity who knew what made me tick, or, how I ticked, and, therefore, would not attempt to reign over me by law...that is a deity I could possibly gladly attempt to sketch-out the outlines of by looking at my consciousness, I do enjoy thinking is a consciousness made in the image of a viable Deity.  5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.  
Here I leave myself open to the possibility of describing, in future, what a viable Deity is !  That might be cool..

You miss my point, which is that ontological arguments can never prove or disprove anything.  As I said, simply because an argument is irrefutable doesn't make it true.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Your objection doesn't appear to be wholly true, but it wouldn't matter if it were..since the judeo christian god was aware that the law would not be absolutely compelling in the first place.  The narrative of vicarious redemption practically revolves around the alleged fact that none of us were capable of being righteous before the law.

That's a pretty tough spot for an argument to be in..when there's a question as to whether or not it's sound..... or...... you can grant the assertion and it still won't lead to the stated conclusion.