Ontological Disproof of God

[Whateverist]

 Neg has threatened to re-write post#1 many times, but has assiduously avoided doing so, ever. 

A re-write of Part I of the OP was sent to you via post from page 19 #184 of this thread, which was a good while ago, so, your above is a mischaracterization...I did rewrite the Deity disproof portion; no more is requisite, until consensus can be reached among members whether or not Part I constitutes a prima facie viable disproof.  I have proferred the possibility of putting the viability of the paper to a consensus vote, the same way science proceeds, however, I do not think there if enough  interest for consensus, either way, to happen.  If the disproof is deemed, by members, to have failed to rise to mere prima facie status, then, I'm outa here, away from all the psychological torture....Negatio.

If you don't win a popularity contest, you're going to leave?

LOL, good luck.

-and this is why you will never possess a solid argument, even though one can certainly be found.

Yeah, that's  tough one.  I hate to ruin anyone's fun but I really just don't like this one.

[Abaddon_ire]

 Neg has threatened to re-write post#1 many times, but has assiduously avoided doing so, ever. 

A re-write of Part I of the OP was sent to you via post from page 19 #184 of this thread, which was a good while ago, so, your above is a mischaracterization...I did rewrite the Deity disproof portion; no more is requisite, until consensus can be reached among members whether or not Part I constitutes a prima facie viable disproof.  I have proferred the possibility of putting the viability of the paper to a consensus vote, the same way science proceeds, however, I do not think there if enough  interest for consensus, either way, to happen.  If the disproof is deemed, by members, to have failed to rise to mere prima facie status, then, I'm outa here, away from all the psychological torture....Negatio.

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent. You have insisted ever since that such incoherency is simply "your style". One is thus provoked to wonder why it is that you double down on such a presentation. It can't be that you want to present your ideas. If you did want to communicate your ideas, you would at least make some attempt at a modicum of clarity, but no. Honking great walls of abstruse text are the order of the day.

Quite obviously, you have absolutely no interest in being understood by anyone, this is all an exercise in navel gazing onanism to you. Nobody here is forcing you to CHANGE your message, we are all simply telling you how to effectively communicate said message. You appear not to care whether your message is communicated to anyone. One must thus wonder thus what the hell are you here for.

An ontological disproof of god? Nope.

[negatio]

A re-write of Part I of the OP was sent to you via post from page 19 #184 of this thread, which was a good while ago, so, your above is a mischaracterization...I did rewrite the Deity disproof portion; no more is requisite, until consensus can be reached among members whether or not Part I constitutes a prima facie viable disproof.  I have proferred the possibility of putting the viability of the paper to a consensus vote, the same way science proceeds, however, I do not think there if enough  interest for consensus, either way, to happen.  If the disproof is deemed, by members, to have failed to rise to mere prima facie status, then, I'm outa here, away from all the psychological torture....Negatio.

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent. You have insisted ever since that such incoherency is simply "your style". One is thus provoked to wonder why it is that you double down on such a presentation. It can't be that you want to present your ideas. If you did want to communicate your ideas, you would at least make some attempt at a modicum of clarity, but no. Honking great walls of abstruse text are the order of the day.

Quite obviously, you have absolutely no interest in being understood by anyone, this is all an exercise in navel gazing onanism to you. Nobody here is forcing you to CHANGE your message, we are all simply telling you how to effectively communicate said message. You appear not to care whether your message is communicated to anyone. One must thus wonder thus what the hell are you here for.

An ontological disproof of god? Nope.

[quote = "Abaddon_ire"
[/quote]
Am in middle of sorting out electrical problem in cabin; do not have any light in computer room; I just about have it licked.  You are mistaken about the OP being incoherent.  The problem here is precisely analogous to the problem I have comprehending computer code absent any background whatsoever in computer theory...I will respond, but it has got to be a little later...Negatio

[Abaddon_ire]

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent. You have insisted ever since that such incoherency is simply "your style". One is thus provoked to wonder why it is that you double down on such a presentation. It can't be that you want to present your ideas. If you did want to communicate your ideas, you would at least make some attempt at a modicum of clarity, but no. Honking great walls of abstruse text are the order of the day.

Quite obviously, you have absolutely no interest in being understood by anyone, this is all an exercise in navel gazing onanism to you. Nobody here is forcing you to CHANGE your message, we are all simply telling you how to effectively communicate said message. You appear not to care whether your message is communicated to anyone. One must thus wonder thus what the hell are you here for.

An ontological disproof of god? Nope.

[quote = "Abaddon_ire"

Am in middle of sorting out electrical problem in cabin;

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

do not have any light in computer room; I just about have it licked.

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.

You are mistaken about the OP being incoherent. 

Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

The problem here is precisely analogous to the problem I have comprehending computer code absent any background whatsoever in computer theory...I will respond, but it has got to be a little later...Negatio

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

[negatio]

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent.

Precisely the same way in which I see computer code prima facie unintelligible, when, what I am seeing is not, in fact, unintelligible, when you look at the particular language I use, which language is straight out of the language of existential phenomenological phenomenology, origination circa 1943, said language appears, to you, to be an indubitable unintelligibility, when, in fact, said language is not, per se, unintelligible.  And, the reason my text seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, of foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you likewise once before, and, you rejected my explanation, and, returned to presenting me with nothing more than pure assertion asserting my language to be incomprehensible.  The language being employed within both the OP, and, the rewrite, is not, not, my language;- the language is Spinoza's and Sartre's, I am merely employing an established existential phenomenological language to enunciate a new means whereby a theoretical destruction of a current notion of Deity is possible, and, you are not instrumented sufficiently to see the meaning of what you are looking at, precisely alike me, with computer code.  Negatio.

Moderator Notice
This is becoming tiresome

[Abaddon_ire]

[quote = "Abaddon_ire"

Am in middle of sorting out electrical problem in cabin;

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

do not have any light in computer room; I just about have it licked.

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.

You are mistaken about the OP being incoherent. 

Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

The problem here is precisely analogous to the problem I have comprehending computer code absent any background whatsoever in computer theory...I will respond, but it has got to be a little later...Negatio

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

---

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent.

Precisely the same way in which I see computer code prima facie unintelligible, when, what I am seeing is not, in fact, unintelligible, when you look at the particular language I use, which language is straight out of the language of existential phenomenological phenomenology, origination circa 1943, said language appears, to you, to be an indubitable unintelligibility, when, in fact, said language is not, per se, unintelligible.  And, the reason is seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you of this once before, and, you rejected my explanation, and, returned to presenting me with nothing more than pure assertion asserting my language to be incomprehensible.  The language being employed within both the OP, and, the rewrite, is not, not, my language;- the language is Spinoza's and Sartre's, I am merely employing an established existential phenomenological language to enunciate a new means whereby a theoretical destruction of a current notion of Deity is possible, and, you are not instrumented sufficiently to see the meaning of what you are looking at, precisely alike me, with computer code.  Negatio.

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

---

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.
Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

---

Precisely the same way in which I see computer code prima facie unintelligible, when, what I am seeing is not, in fact, unintelligible, when you look at the particular language I use, which language is straight out of the language of existential phenomenological phenomenology, origination circa 1943, said language appears, to you, to be an indubitable unintelligibility, when, in fact, said language is not, per se, unintelligible.  And, the reason is seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you of this once before, and, you rejected my explanation, and, returned to presenting me with nothing more than pure assertion asserting my language to be incomprehensible.  The language being employed within both the OP, and, the rewrite, is not, not, my language;- the language is Spinoza's and Sartre's, I am merely employing an established existential phenomenological language to enunciate a new means whereby a theoretical destruction of a current notion of Deity is possible, and, you are not instrumented sufficiently to see the meaning of what you are looking at, precisely alike me, with computer code.  Negatio.

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

And you still comprhensively cock up  the quote function despite all effort.

[negatio]

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.
Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

---

Precisely the same way in which I see computer code prima facie unintelligible, when, what I am seeing is not, in fact, unintelligible, when you look at the particular language I use, which language is straight out of the language of existential phenomenological phenomenology, origination circa 1943, said language appears, to you, to be an indubitable unintelligibility, when, in fact, said language is not, per se, unintelligible.  And, the reason is seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you of this once before, and, you rejected my explanation, and, returned to presenting me with nothing more than pure assertion asserting my language to be incomprehensible.  The language being employed within both the OP, and, the rewrite, is not, not, my language;- the language is Spinoza's and Sartre's, I am merely employing an established existential phenomenological language to enunciate a new means whereby a theoretical destruction of a current notion of Deity is possible, and, you are not instrumented sufficiently to see the meaning of what you are looking at, precisely alike me, with computer code.  Negatio.

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

---

---

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

And you still comprhensively cock up  the quote function despite all effort.

I am engaged in Replying. And, it seems you are continually calling Reply "Quoting"; so, one cannot really tell what on earth you are actually attempting to refer to. I thought Quoting was the earlier disaster when I was using the Quote tab, and inadvertently generating multi-quoting.  Do you guys mean Reply when you say Quoting ?  I think I am trying to learn how to properly Post Reply, not Quote!?  So when you use two terms as synonyms, and, there is really a difference between the two, you are unintentionally both confusing, and, systematically misleading me! Negatio.

[Lucanus]

Losty, you're the real MVP

[Losty]

Losty, you're the real MVP

I try

[negatio]

If you don't win a popularity contest, you're going to leave?

LOL, good luck.

-and this is why you will never possess a solid argument, even though one can certainly be found.

No, consensus is the means scientists agree, or disagree, among themselves, in their process of progressing in

science. (See: Jurgen Habermas, "Knowledge and Human Interest"). It has nothing to do with popularity!

Precisely what "this" is that?!

Oh, I possess a goddamn solid argument; said argument is staring you directly in the face, however, you cannot

see it. Until you fill me in on the exact meaning of your "this", I cannot clearly fathom what you are trying to tell

me here, although, via your "never" it appears that you possess an ability to predict the future. Shit, if I were

you I would employ a capacity for future prediction at the Kentucky Derby!

While  you are confident argument is certainly to be found, with you predictive capacity, you should be able to 

describe, for everyone, said presently-absent solid argument; instead of constantly telling me, and telling me,

and telling me, that said argument certainly can be found. So, where is said absent solid argument now?

Sounds to me that you may know what and where the missing argument is.  Please stop continuously telling

about your ghost argument; and, write it out yourself, and, if you cannot, or, will not; mine is the only such

argument on the table, and, if you cannot find the absent argument you are so sure has some type of existence

or other; you are, thereby, thrown onto the possibility of voting mine to be prima facie viable, or not. Negatio. 

 

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote 😒