Ontological Disproof of God

[brewer]

But Jehovah does not have a "notion". It does not exist in reality except as a concept, a mental construct of humans. Just like all of the other gods through out history. I'm not sure why you seem to have focused on the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic god. 

Humans make laws for control, structure and order, in an attempt to effect behavior and actions.

mh.brewer
'Notion'; 'Reality'; "Concept';  Mental'; Lawxxanalytic philosophers question these human constructs ad infinitum.  Nonetheless, we still employ these suspect terms.  The point is that human beings have thought, for thousands of years, that Yahweh sent Moses down to the children of Israel with stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of God, bearing law whereby Yahweh had the notion that he could determine these children in their conduct ; since then, (be it fiction, or, whatever) men have, with tremendous travail, employed "law"; now, I am here pursuing a theoretical destruction of the notion "law", I, we, have to use some semiotic unit to say that Yahweh conceived "law".  Precisely brewer, "law", in a very vigorous sense, does not in fact exist as a Platonic form type of being, and so on and so on; however there is a very real sense in which "law" is here, within our sociosphere, and we have reached the point where we so radically over-apply the theoretical construct that is "law", that "law" is become destructive of human beings who quit their businesses because law has required so  much of them that they cannot function...and on and on and on...there are examples of our having reached the point in our civilization, where law is a maladaptive means to attaining civilization....Thank you mh.brewer. Negaato.

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

[Whateverist]

Is 'radical' your favourite adjective?

Boru

Because that would be totally awesome.

---

Yeah... I think those random ones are maybe him experimenting with creating his own quotes from scratch... probably not the best idea until he understands what tags are in general... since if incorrectly used it just creates even more of a mess.

Even more impressive since at last check you only used a mobile? Have you got a laptop/tablet now? I can't imagine trying to fix all this on a mobile

Anyway just kidding about the lightweight... I think 35 would be plenty enough for a nice relaxing session

I do have a laptop but I never use it for AF, I did all that from my phone haha. Some were more difficult just because the posts were so long I couldn’t copy paste the part I wanted because it was bigger than my whole screen, I probably should have gotten the laptop out that would’ve made it a lot easier. I really need to practice using it more anyway.

That scares me much more than anything biblical could ever do.

[negatio]

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy.

Precisely, in my last response to you I said that Hammnurabbi  was prior, but since I cannot spell Hamnurabbi , I did not include it.  I am not using Yahweh as a source, I have never said that in my OP. Just to you.  I use Yahweh because he is the one we in the West are actually predicate our American legal system upon...or, are you going to disagree with that too !  Are you an attorney ?
What I am considering is that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ are the persons/gods, or whatever they were, or are, or art not, they are the entities/nonentities, whatever they are or aren't, are describe in the Bible as inscribing law on tablets...sending Moses with the tablets...using law to control man...American jurisprudence is indubitably predicated upon that Jewish weltanschauung wherein law is given for the sake of edifying the people... Negatio.

---

This site somehow changes my wording, of which I have been unaware, thus, it stupidly ruins the grammatical structure of my posts !  Another user unfriendly aspect of this site !  Automatically changing my wording is intolerable, and I am helpless against it ! Neatio.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

[emjay]

Negatio, top closing quote tag has the second square bracket as [ instead of ], that's why it's not working.

---

As to it changing wording, it does have a spelling corrector I think... maybe, but I don't see that myself because I use source mode or my phone most of the time.

[brewer]

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy.

Precisely, in my last response to you I said that Hammnurabbi  was prior, but since I cannot spell Hamnurabbi , I did not include it.  I am not using Yahweh as a source, I have never said that in my OP. Just to you.  I use Yahweh because he is the one we in the West are actually predicate our American legal system upon...or, are you going to disagree with that too !  Are you an attorney ?
What I am considering is that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ are the persons/gods, or whatever they were, or are, or art not, they are the entities/nonentities, whatever they are or aren't, are describe in the Bible as inscribing law on tablets...sending Moses with the tablets...using law to control man...American jurisprudence is indubitably predicated upon that Jewish weltanschauung wherein law is given for the sake of edifying the people... Negatio.

Laws/rules of society existed prior to Hammnurabbi, prior to any specific ruler. It is a logical creation of any group of people existing together. 
And I disagree that the american legal system is predicated upon a jewish world view.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

[Angrboda]

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.

---

---

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. 

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre. If my view is correct, then enough said. However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own. I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction. For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs. Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

[negatio]

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.

Khemikal  I am going to use you as a guinea pig to see if I am getting code for quoting book references, you are the only one who appears to be online at the moment..

determinatio negatio est

---

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.

---

---

J.  Attacking belief in God is not my goal. My goal is to demonstrate, via explaining what a certain school of philosophy deems to be the true modus operandi of human origination of an act, that the gods I named are not Deity, because they clearly do not understand how their putative creation, man, ticks when it comes to originating acts.

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. 

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre.  If my view is correct, then enough said.  However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.  I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction.  For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

---

your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I do not want to prove anything, in person, to believers.  After a long conversation with a wonderful Amish man, I subsequently apologized to him for doing such a totally fucking rude asshole thing as presenting, directly in his wonderful face, an ontological disproof of God.  I simply wont to set forward, in writing, a viable, unquestionable, philosophical theory of the absence of Deity in the character of Jesus Christ, because I am sick of hearing how I should sign my entire life over to this Christ dude, and let him run my fucking life, for the past seventy years now !  I am an absolute ontological freedom in possession of a reflective understanding of my absolute ontological freedom, I want to attempt to run my own life, not drop that life and become some fuck's underling ! ; because he is God, and died for my fucking sins !

---

likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.

nothing could withstand my destruction, not challenge, its too fucking true because it derives right out of the personal ontological structure of everyone, which is an indubitable structure, meaning the double nihilation.

---

contradict Sartrehow on earth would you do a theoretical destruction of omins determinatio est negatio !?

[The Grand Nudger]

At least we drew an f-bomb. 

[negatio]

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.

---

---

An Important Ramification of Spinoza's Dictum is Disproof of the Deity of Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ

    Spinoza's dictum

determinatio negatio est

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. 

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre.  If my view is correct, then enough said.  However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.  I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction.  For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

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.

Khemikal  I am going to use you as a guinea pig to see if I am getting code for quoting book references, you are the only one who appears to be online at the moment..

determinatio negatio est

---

---

---

J.  Attacking belief in God is not my goal. My goal is to demonstrate, via explaining what a certain school of philosophy deems to be the true modus operandi of human origination of an act, that the gods I named are not Deity, because they clearly do not understand how their putative creation, man, ticks when it comes to originating acts.

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre.  If my view is correct, then enough said.  However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.  I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction.  For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

---

your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I do not want to prove anything, in person, to believers.  After a long conversation with a wonderful Amish man, I subsequently apologized to him for doing such a totally fucking rude asshole thing as presenting, directly in his wonderful face, an ontological disproof of God.  I simply wont to set forward, in writing, a viable, unquestionable, philosophical theory of the absence of Deity in the character of Jesus Christ, because I am sick of hearing how I should sign my entire life over to this Christ dude, and let him run my fucking life, for the past seventy years now !  I am an absolute ontological freedom in possession of a reflective understanding of my absolute ontological freedom, I want to attempt to run my own life, not drop that life and become some fuck's underling ! ; because he is God, and died for my fucking sins !

---

likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.

nothing could withstand my destruction, not challenge, its too fucking true because it derives right out of the personal ontological structure of everyone, which is an indubitable structure, meaning the double nihilation.

---

contradict Sartrehow on earth would you do a theoretical destruction of omins determinatio est negatio !?

[negatio]

[quote = ''Spinoza"] determination is negation [/quote]