Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

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.

My response to Iwnkyaaimi explained why, in philosophy, when writing my very best attempt to communicate a philosophical position to the world, one is under enormous necessities requisite to positing an indefeasible philosophical position. It radically insults me when you assert I am using ontological "jargon" ! I am using the language of existential phenomenological ontology and using the theoretical weaponry attendant upon that same existential ontological language. When I am asserting ontological unintelligibility to be exhibited by the language and theoretical constructs of American law, I, so to speak, throw myself into a situation alike playing the American game of hardball baseball, i.e., I am absolutely without excuse for not possessing the consummate skill and presence of mind to play; here, I am playing hardball upon the theoretical level regarding the very theoretical constructs whereupon Americans have founded their very civilization. I am not employing what J. so ungraciously characterizes as "jargon", it is only ''jargon'' to someone unable to nobly show an a priori respect for something she has not, perhaps cannot, yet, fully give a fair reading to... I am employing the established and as yet undefeated language and theoretical constructions of Sartreian ontological description of how a human act originates. In order to describe Sartre's understanding of the originative mode of a human act, at the level of hardball I knew I was engaged in, in this hardball world, before I posted the OP here, when I was purely casting my writing out into the world (how else can one submit one's best thinking to the world other than just casting it forth ?!), I, of course, used the language the theoretical constructions I employ were originally cast in, Sartreian existentialist thought is an established language, (thought is language/language is thought, Wittgenstein) extant across the entire world, studied at universities worldwide. The OP writing is written for Doctors of Jurisprudence, who oft times have degrees in philosophy, and, of course to PhD Philosophy scholars, who, viably, are expected to possess the theoretical instrumentation requisite to digesting the OP; and, most certainly, it is written to absolutely anyone toughminded enough to gain an ultimate comprehension of what the OP is saying. I was simply using what I saw to be an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which appeared to be a viable platform upon which to perch my theory, for the theory did indeed, posit an ontological disproof of Deity. The thinker who posted the OP absolutely could not achieve enunciation of the OP in simple language, he had been trying for years, that did not matter, he, nonetheless, wanted to cast the treatise out into the world; not knowing anything whatsoever about persons engaged within the Forum. (Subsequently, I rewrote the totality of Part I in simpler terms, because the dialectic I engaged in with members was so radically stimulating, that I was finally able to put the treatise in a much more straightforward and, simpler manner).
I am not and do not need to affectuate an inauthentic personality, which personality is pretending to any damn thing; I am real; and when I say I cannot cast the OP otherwise, even though I just did, I much prefer the OP, because I am under the stark necessity to own indefeasibility in my position, and, the OP is written and structured for theoretical indefeasibility. I am an existentialist, authenticity is of utmost significance to be, I am not ignobly pretending to be something other!, which is precisely what has been demanded of me for ten days now; everyone wants me to live up to their particular expectation of what I should, in their estimation, rather be ! This is an absolutely wonderful dialectical state of affairs which is transpiring now between me and the members, it is damn good medicine for me; however, the OP stands, nonetheless, it will be recast, during the course of a hopefully ongoing dialectic between myself and very stimulating members. (Could someone please shoot me BB code for putting a pic in the upper left hand corned of my thread; I have a pic of the actual ivory tower I do a lot of writing are reading in, while the birds sing and the deer leap).
Sartreian neologisms enunciate the most absolutely beautiful and the most profound, most absolutely radical thinking about how human action originates, in the entire history of the world. I cannot, will not, dis-avail myself of the most absolutely profound and powerful intellectual instrumentation ever enunciated in the history of human thought ! To be able to both understand and to employ the theoretical ideation enunciated by the neologisms, gives me the bullet-proof armor requisite to participate in hardball theoretical destruction of that which no one, thus far, has even thought to question, much less actually questioned ,i.e., American law, in a theoretical overthrow of the ontological unintelligibility attendant upon the primemost theoretical construct of the American religion, which essential theoretical construct is "law",and, the fundamental presupposition mistakenly entertained by said law, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct. Thank You. Negatio.

---

Thank You Astreja.  I take it from your vernacular that you are British.  Negatio.

Canadian, actually (Canadian English is similar to British in that we use spellings like "colour" instead of "color").

I'm also a big fan of British comedy and a lot of the jargon has slipped into my vocabulary over the years.

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.

Thank you.

Canadian, actually
Astreja, I was born in Edmonton, Alberta, to a Ukranian Canadian mother and an American father.  I've never, unfortunately, seen Canada.  My mom told me how totally beautiful Banff is, and the Canadian Rockies.  Parents moved back to the states when me and my twin sister were three months; I was dual citizen until age 21, when I chose American.  My dad told me I would not like Canada, I think he was trying to tell me that it is less free, or something, up there.  I adore Trailer Park Boys, they can cuss openly on Canadian media, and the fact that they cannot curse when on America TV, makes them suffer terribly from a sense of lack of freedom of speech, when on American TV, clearly tells me there is merely a qualitied freedom of speech here in America.  I saw your diagrammatic lesson, which I will study ASAP.  Thanks. Duane.

[negatio]

Referencing Jormungandr's":
''It might help you if you put the editor in source mode and respond that way. (You can also select to put the editor in source mode by default under User CP > Edit Options.)''
I have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, what you just so kindly advised can possibly mean ! You lost me at ''source mode'', what is it that I am not doing correctly now ? I think you are saying that it is something which I am not doing … and, that absent something is putting the editor in ''source mode'' whatever that is !

[Angrboda]

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.

My response to Iwnkyaaimi explained why, in philosophy, when writing my very best attempt to communicate a philosophical position to the world, one is under enormous necessities requisite to positing an indefeasible philosophical position. It radically insults me when you assert I am using  ontological "jargon" ! I am using the language of existential phenomenological ontology and using the theoretical weaponry attendant upon that same existential ontological language.  When I am asserting ontological unintelligibility to be exhibited by the language and theoretical constructs of American law, I, so to speak, throw myself into a situation alike playing the American game of hardball baseball, i.e., I am absolutely without excuse for not possessing the consummate skill and presence of mind to play; here, I am playing hardball upon the theoretical level regarding the very theoretical constructs whereupon Americans have founded their very civilization. I am not employing what J. so ungraciously characterizes as "jargon", it is  only ''jargon'' to someone unable to nobly show an a priori respect for something she has not, perhaps cannot, yet, fully give a fair reading to... I am employing the established and as yet undefeated language and theoretical constructions of Sartreian ontological description of how a human act originates.  In order to describe Sartre's understanding of the originative mode of a human act, at the level of hardball I knew I was engaged in, in this hardball world, before I posted the OP here, when I was purely casting my writing out into the world (how else can  one submit one's best thinking to the world other than just casting it forth ?!), I, of course, used the language the theoretical constructions  I employ were originally cast in, Sartreian existentialist thought is an established language, (thought is language/language is thought, Wittgenstein) extant across the entire world, studied at universities worldwide. The OP writing is written for Doctors of Jurisprudence, who oft times have degrees in philosophy, and, of course to PhD Philosophy scholars, who, viably, are expected to possess the theoretical instrumentation requisite to digesting the OP; and, most certainly, it is written to absolutely anyone toughminded enough to gain an ultimate comprehension of what the OP is saying. I was simply using what I saw to be an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which appeared to be a viable platform upon which to perch my theory, for the theory did indeed, posit an ontological disproof of Deity.  The thinker who posted the OP absolutely could not achieve enunciation of the OP in simple language, he had been trying for years, that did not matter, he, nonetheless, wanted to cast the treatise out into the world; not knowing anything whatsoever about persons engaged within the Forum. (Subsequently, I rewrote the totality of Part I in simpler terms, because the dialectic I engaged in with members  was so radically stimulating, that I was finally able to put the treatise in a much more straightforward and, simpler manner).
I am not and do not need to affectuate an inauthentic personality, which personality is pretending to any damn thing; I am real; and when I say I cannot cast the OP otherwise, even though I just did, I much prefer the OP,  because I am under the stark necessity to own indefeasibility in my position, and, the OP is written and structured for theoretical indefeasibility. I am an existentialist, authenticity is of utmost significance to be, I am not ignobly pretending to be something other!, which is precisely what has been demanded of me for ten days now; everyone wants me to live up to their particular expectation of what I should, in their estimation, rather be !  This is an absolutely wonderful dialectical state of affairs which is transpiring now between me and the members, it is damn good medicine for me; however, the OP stands, nonetheless, it will be recast, during the course of a hopefully ongoing dialectic between myself and very stimulating members.  (Could someone please shoot me BB code for putting a pic in the upper left hand corned of my thread; I have a pic of the actual ivory tower I do a lot of writing are reading in, while the birds sing and the deer leap).
Sartreian neologisms enunciate the most absolutely beautiful and the most profound, most absolutely radical thinking about how human action originates, in the entire history of the world.  I cannot, will not, dis-avail myself  of  the most absolutely profound and powerful intellectual instrumentation ever enunciated in the history of  human thought !  To be able to both understand and to employ the theoretical ideation enunciated by the neologisms, gives me the bullet-proof armor requisite to participate in hardball theoretical destruction of that which no one, thus far, has even thought to question, much less  actually questioned ,i.e., American law, in a theoretical overthrow of the ontological unintelligibility attendant upon the primemost theoretical construct of the American religion, which essential theoretical construct is "law",and, the fundamental presupposition mistakenly entertained by said law, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct. Thank You. Negatio.

These are all nothing but excuses for your incompetence. You can't defend your OP in either jargon or simple language. Expressing things in jargon doesn't make your position less defeasable, except insofar as it makes it incomprehensible, it just presents a barrier to understanding. If you'll read real philosophers, they don't talk or write like this. Even Sartre only used his neologisms after patient introduction of their meaning and plenty of examples. So you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

And for what it's worth, you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

Definition of jargon
1 : the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group

Here's another definition that I find useful here.

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

~ Wikipedia

[robvalue]

@negatio: Have you defined what a god / deity is anywhere here?

[negatio]

You can't defend your OP

No one has yet successfully attempted to achieve a theoretical destruction of the OP, all you guys are able to do is set forth argumentum ad hominin upon argumentum as hominem, completely bent on showing me to be all these horrible things, on and on, now I am " incompetent".
I am totally, completely, entirely without excuse; nor need I make excuses; I am not making excuse/excuses for an incompetence; wow, this just gets more and more and radically solely an argument against my person, and, not my position, which position is predicated upon Spinoza's dictum, and, Sartre's variation and employment of that dictum as "omnis determinatio est negatio''; even if you cannot follow my position solely because you are unable to track my absolutely disdainful attempt to present my position, you would have to be capable of destroying, at the theoretical level, Spinoza's infinitely rich dictum. I am not making excuses, I am describing the realities of philosophical position positing. Focus on just one little bit of the OP, e.g., my notion of "jurisprudential illusion", and, focus on overthrowing it...why the radically concentrated and ongoing attempt to impugn my person as a means to overthrowing my position ?! Argumentum ad hominem is not, cannot be efficient to overthrow a person's position...I am at a total loss to understand why practically everyone attacks my person here ?! It is so ignoble of you...
Did you notice how efficiently I threw/bucked-off these nerds who are continually attempting to constitute me as a troll ? I have not heard back from the stupid fucks, I must have made sense to them !
Distinguish my person from my position, attack the position; you've tried J., and you got your fucking ass totally kicked by your own negligent failure to posit an intelligible attack ! Disengage from stupid schoolyard insults !
It was just beginning to appear, here, that the philosophy sector of this forum, is engaged in a live Platonic/Socratic dialogical dialectical interpersonal exchange, regarding questions of interest to persons like Jormungander, I am hoping that is the case...however it appears so many of the persons on this site are so totally bent on expressing hatred, instead of rational dialogic, that I am extremely discouraged. Why, on earth, the constant and horrid attacks on my person, which in your lingo, is trolling, because it brings alienation/contention among members, not nobly conducted interchange ! ? Clearly, I have stumbled into a shadowy cave wherein the dwellers see only the false shadows of their own mistaken worldview, and, cannot, will not, attempt to nobly respond to a total stranger, who claims he had previously crawled up out of the cave he once dwelt in, and, acting on his Socratic responsibility to descend back into the cave and, inform the dwellers therein of what wonderful things he has seen, since leaving a shadowy cave. I will not be told that it is impossible for communication to transpire between a person with legitimate philosophical credentials, to communicate with cave dwellers who appear able only to exhibit absolute hatred in response to his report of what he has seen up in the light outside the cave ! I can not accept that ugly prospect, or, do the members think that, probably, I should ? According to the hateful Whateverist, I should no longer bother to respond to member concerns, because, according to W., the cave dwellers just plain do not give a fuck …, however, since I am now prepared to explain my position by continuing a discussion of the Neil lMc Cauley character in the piece of cinema named "Heat", because Neil is Sartre's jargon/language portrayed cinematographically, wherein Neil is this totally free thief wherein...pre-reflectively knowing that he is an absolute freedom, is...
Very very sad. Love; Negatio.




I

---

My response to Iwnkyaaimi explained why, in philosophy, when writing my very best attempt to communicate a philosophical position to the world, one is under enormous necessities requisite to positing an indefeasible philosophical position. It radically insults me when you assert I am using  ontological "jargon" ! I am using the language of existential phenomenological ontology and using the theoretical weaponry attendant upon that same existential ontological language.  When I am asserting ontological unintelligibility to be exhibited by the language and theoretical constructs of American law, I, so to speak, throw myself into a situation alike playing the American game of hardball baseball, i.e., I am absolutely without excuse for not possessing the consummate skill and presence of mind to play; here, I am playing hardball upon the theoretical level regarding the very theoretical constructs whereupon Americans have founded their very civilization. I am not employing what J. so ungraciously characterizes as "jargon", it is  only ''jargon'' to someone unable to nobly show an a priori respect for something she has not, perhaps cannot, yet, fully give a fair reading to... I am employing the established and as yet undefeated language and theoretical constructions of Sartreian ontological description of how a human act originates.  In order to describe Sartre's understanding of the originative mode of a human act, at the level of hardball I knew I was engaged in, in this hardball world, before I posted the OP here, when I was purely casting my writing out into the world (how else can  one submit one's best thinking to the world other than just casting it forth ?!), I, of course, used the language the theoretical constructions  I employ were originally cast in, Sartreian existentialist thought is an established language, (thought is language/language is thought, Wittgenstein) extant across the entire world, studied at universities worldwide. The OP writing is written for Doctors of Jurisprudence, who oft times have degrees in philosophy, and, of course to PhD Philosophy scholars, who, viably, are expected to possess the theoretical instrumentation requisite to digesting the OP; and, most certainly, it is written to absolutely anyone toughminded enough to gain an ultimate comprehension of what the OP is saying. I was simply using what I saw to be an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which appeared to be a viable platform upon which to perch my theory, for the theory did indeed, posit an ontological disproof of Deity.  The thinker who posted the OP absolutely could not achieve enunciation of the OP in simple language, he had been trying for years, that did not matter, he, nonetheless, wanted to cast the treatise out into the world; not knowing anything whatsoever about persons engaged within the Forum. (Subsequently, I rewrote the totality of Part I in simpler terms, because the dialectic I engaged in with members  was so radically stimulating, that I was finally able to put the treatise in a much more straightforward and, simpler manner).
I am not and do not need to affectuate an inauthentic personality, which personality is pretending to any damn thing; I am real; and when I say I cannot cast the OP otherwise, even though I just did, I much prefer the OP,  because I am under the stark necessity to own indefeasibility in my position, and, the OP is written and structured for theoretical indefeasibility. I am an existentialist, authenticity is of utmost significance to be, I am not ignobly pretending to be something other!, which is precisely what has been demanded of me for ten days now; everyone wants me to live up to their particular expectation of what I should, in their estimation, rather be !  This is an absolutely wonderful dialectical state of affairs which is transpiring now between me and the members, it is damn good medicine for me; however, the OP stands, nonetheless, it will be recast, during the course of a hopefully ongoing dialectic between myself and very stimulating members.  (Could someone please shoot me BB code for putting a pic in the upper left hand corned of my thread; I have a pic of the actual ivory tower I do a lot of writing are reading in, while the birds sing and the deer leap).
Sartreian neologisms enunciate the most absolutely beautiful and the most profound, most absolutely radical thinking about how human action originates, in the entire history of the world.  I cannot, will not, dis-avail myself  of  the most absolutely profound and powerful intellectual instrumentation ever enunciated in the history of  human thought !  To be able to both understand and to employ the theoretical ideation enunciated by the neologisms, gives me the bullet-proof armor requisite to participate in hardball theoretical destruction of that which no one, thus far, has even thought to question, much less  actually questioned ,i.e., American law, in a theoretical overthrow of the ontological unintelligibility attendant upon the primemost theoretical construct of the American religion, which essential theoretical construct is "law",and, the fundamental presupposition mistakenly entertained by said law, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct. Thank You. Negatio.

These are all nothing but excuses for your incompetence.  You can't defend your OP in either jargon or simple language.  Expressing things in jargon doesn't make your position less defeasable, except insofar as it makes it incomprehensible, it just presents a barrier to understanding.  If you'll read real philosophers, they don't talk or write like this.  Even Sartre only used his neologisms after patient introduction of their meaning and plenty of examples.  So you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

And for what it's worth, you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

Definition of jargon
1 : the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group

Here's another definition that I find useful here.

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

~ Wikipedia

@negatio: Have you defined what a god / deity is anywhere here?

Robvalue, yes, indeed, I started on that when I informed the members that Deity is, at its simplest, just a hierarchical construct, wherein that which is next higher than one on the continuum of beings, is one's Deity.  This was the view of a Philosopher named Alexander, thus, for instance: God; Man; Khemikal; Cro Magnon man; Neanderthal man … You see.  And, of course, Deity is commonly thought of as that which made/created man...Thanks a million Robvalue, how refreshing to have the opportunity for a civil interchange with a member ! Negatio.

---

you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

a form of language regarded as barbarous, debased, or hybrid. Yea, I don't know a goddamn fucking thing ! So you see, J., "jargon" does have a perjorative connotation, and, since you clearly did not know that, you're reply entails an incompetence to the degree you lacked complete apprehension of the term; I suggest you change tack; get off constant attempt to embarrass me via continuously positing fallacious argumentum ad hominem. Admit it J., you are totally and absolutely incapable of rationally, efficaciously, positing anything rational against the OP...now I do see that you are so damned angry with me that you cannot see straight, and, thus the constant, vain, ongoing, ragging...If you could ever get off my case, and, explain why the OP is a piece of shit, I am sure you could soar to heights of philosophical expression which will uplift and edify everyone now participating in the philosophy forum. Negatio.

[negatio]

barrier to understanding.

No. I am not a barrier to the understanding, by others, of my OP. You, J., are your own barrier to understanding the OP, because, your comprehension of Sartre is too shallow. No one else writes like "this", I take it meaning my writing...(see Wittgenstein's scribbling); so what, I write in the manner I write; I do not and will not write in the manner which you prefer for me ! What the fuck ! You are so all-knowing that you have, with your unintelligible ''this''-writing aside, competence to condescend to my level, and instruct me ! One clear contribution I have made to the forum is to discuss the absurdity of continually leaving the reader at a loss to follow, because one is so stuck on stupid that he or she employs "this....", fuck, yea, you are so much more radically capable of writing clearer than I, and, your sapientality is my Deity via being higher and radically more insightful than mine, and, I should therefore, fall down on my face before you, my Lord, and, confess my sins, and take you, J., as my fucking savior; then, forever more I will write intelligibly ! ? Shit, why have I totally failed to realize 'this' ??? Fuck ! Negatio.

[Lucanus]

Has it crossed your mind even once that this forum may be read by people whose first language is not English? Your writing style, with the endless run-on sentences is needlessly complicated and essentially works as a smokescreen. It actively makes me not care about your arguments, because it makes me feel like you don't give a shit about being understood.

[negatio]

arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs,

So, hasten forward, you have not successfully rationally contradicted my mere "belief(s)", therefore I am not yet constituted a "crank". Every time, thus far, you come at me, cranking-out fallacious argument by extension and by ad hominem, you get demolished !
I really love the 1945 movie, with Sir Charles Laughton, entitled "Captain Kidd", where, in one scene, he is in the presence of the king of England and the king's cronies, and, one of the gentlemen challenges Laughton/Kidd to a sword fight; Laughton/Kidd stands there awaiting the attack, then, he admits to the gentleman that he knows nothing of aristocratic dueling, and, therefore, the gentleman must come directly at him in attack, the gentleman dude lurches forward flailing his sword at Kidd, and, Kidd in a split second lands the swordsman directly on his ass !
If, indeed, I am a ''crank'', a pure mere assertion of my being a crank must be indubitably established via you making a directly intelligible and efficacious frontal attack whereby, you would, logically demonstrate me a crank ! I know nothing, I am a mere rustic, alike Captain Kidd, you must as Kidd said "come at me'', and, then, what makes you think I won't, once again, land you on your ass !
Indeed, I am tiring, after more than a week of constant argumentum ad hominem being relentlessly, vainly, directed against my person. How long, in this shadowy cave, does my Socratic responsibility to the barbaric cave dwellers extend ? How much more of this horrid bullshit can one take !? Should one take ? Would it be best, or, a mistake to crawl back up out of here, now ?! Negatio.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

My response to Iwnkyaaimi explained why, in philosophy, when writing my very best attempt to communicate a philosophical position to the world, one is under enormous necessities requisite to positing an indefeasible philosophical position. It radically insults me when you assert I am using  ontological "jargon" ! I am using the language of existential phenomenological ontology and using the theoretical weaponry attendant upon that same existential ontological language.  When I am asserting ontological unintelligibility to be exhibited by the language and theoretical constructs of American law, I, so to speak, throw myself into a situation alike playing the American game of hardball baseball, i.e., I am absolutely without excuse for not possessing the consummate skill and presence of mind to play; here, I am playing hardball upon the theoretical level regarding the very theoretical constructs whereupon Americans have founded their very civilization. I am not employing what J. so ungraciously characterizes as "jargon", it is  only ''jargon'' to someone unable to nobly show an a priori respect for something she has not, perhaps cannot, yet, fully give a fair reading to... I am employing the established and as yet undefeated language and theoretical constructions of Sartreian ontological description of how a human act originates.  In order to describe Sartre's understanding of the originative mode of a human act, at the level of hardball I knew I was engaged in, in this hardball world, before I posted the OP here, when I was purely casting my writing out into the world (how else can  one submit one's best thinking to the world other than just casting it forth ?!), I, of course, used the language the theoretical constructions  I employ were originally cast in, Sartreian existentialist thought is an established language, (thought is language/language is thought, Wittgenstein) extant across the entire world, studied at universities worldwide. The OP writing is written for Doctors of Jurisprudence, who oft times have degrees in philosophy, and, of course to PhD Philosophy scholars, who, viably, are expected to possess the theoretical instrumentation requisite to digesting the OP; and, most certainly, it is written to absolutely anyone toughminded enough to gain an ultimate comprehension of what the OP is saying. I was simply using what I saw to be an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which appeared to be a viable platform upon which to perch my theory, for the theory did indeed, posit an ontological disproof of Deity.  The thinker who posted the OP absolutely could not achieve enunciation of the OP in simple language, he had been trying for years, that did not matter, he, nonetheless, wanted to cast the treatise out into the world; not knowing anything whatsoever about persons engaged within the Forum. (Subsequently, I rewrote the totality of Part I in simpler terms, because the dialectic I engaged in with members  was so radically stimulating, that I was finally able to put the treatise in a much more straightforward and, simpler manner).
I am not and do not need to affectuate an inauthentic personality, which personality is pretending to any damn thing; I am real; and when I say I cannot cast the OP otherwise, even though I just did, I much prefer the OP,  because I am under the stark necessity to own indefeasibility in my position, and, the OP is written and structured for theoretical indefeasibility. I am an existentialist, authenticity is of utmost significance to be, I am not ignobly pretending to be something other!, which is precisely what has been demanded of me for ten days now; everyone wants me to live up to their particular expectation of what I should, in their estimation, rather be !  This is an absolutely wonderful dialectical state of affairs which is transpiring now between me and the members, it is damn good medicine for me; however, the OP stands, nonetheless, it will be recast, during the course of a hopefully ongoing dialectic between myself and very stimulating members.  (Could someone please shoot me BB code for putting a pic in the upper left hand corned of my thread; I have a pic of the actual ivory tower I do a lot of writing are reading in, while the birds sing and the deer leap).
Sartreian neologisms enunciate the most absolutely beautiful and the most profound, most absolutely radical thinking about how human action originates, in the entire history of the world.  I cannot, will not, dis-avail myself  of  the most absolutely profound and powerful intellectual instrumentation ever enunciated in the history of  human thought !  To be able to both understand and to employ the theoretical ideation enunciated by the neologisms, gives me the bullet-proof armor requisite to participate in hardball theoretical destruction of that which no one, thus far, has even thought to question, much less  actually questioned ,i.e., American law, in a theoretical overthrow of the ontological unintelligibility attendant upon the primemost theoretical construct of the American religion, which essential theoretical construct is "law",and, the fundamental presupposition mistakenly entertained by said law, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct. Thank You. Negatio.

---

Canadian, actually (Canadian English is similar to British in that we use spellings like "colour" instead of "color").

I'm also a big fan of British comedy and a lot of the jargon has slipped into my vocabulary over the years.

Thank you.

Canadian, actually
Astreja, I was born in Edmonton, Alberta, to a Ukranian Canadian mother and an American father.  I've never, unfortunately, seen Canada.  My mom told me how totally beautiful Banff is, and the Canadian Rockies.  Parents moved back to the states when me and my twin sister were three months; I was dual citizen until age 21, when I chose American.  My dad told me I would not like Canada, I think he was trying to tell me that it is less free, or something, up there.  I adore Trailer Park Boys, they can cuss openly on Canadian media, and the fact that they cannot curse when on America TV, makes them suffer terribly from a sense of lack of freedom of speech, when on American TV, clearly tells me there is merely a qualitied freedom of speech here in America.  I saw your diagrammatic lesson, which I will study ASAP.  Thanks. Duane.

TL;DR

[The Grand Nudger]

K, now you're cooking with grease.  You can get plenty of pages by pretending that no one has shown something to be trivially false.  I think it boils down to people's inability to believe that someone could be so dense.