Ontological Disproof of God

[emjay]

My guess is B with modifications; that the original intent was just to share his theory on a philosophy forum and debate it. But since that went down like a lead balloon, partly because of the size and style of the OP and partly because of his technical incompetence with the site, it just became an onslaught of information and suspicion coming from all directions. I'm not the best teacher... Kevin's a much better... much more concise teacher than me; so you've got Kevin saying one thing, in his style, me saying it in another style, you saying it in another style etc... it would be easy to be overwhelmed with too much information and no idea where to start. I know that feeling well. So that on top of suspicion of ulterior motives coming from every corner, would be an understandably unpleasant, frustrating, and angering experience if you really were a total newbie to forums, and all you wanted to do was share your theories for discussion for the first time.

Maybe a good solution then, and a show of good faith from negatio would be a truce as it were... if we all just took a time out from this thread for a long while. That way he could study all the technical advice that's been given in and out of thread and let it sink in at his own pace, without the pressure of a constantly moving thread. Then as soon as he was ready, could come back in. I've already told him by PM that it's possible to practice BBCode and laying out posts in a draft PM with no recipient that you just constantly edit, preview, and save. Doing that would allow him to practice and experiment, but without clogging up the forum with the results of that experimentation. What say you negatio?

Wow, emjay.  I had perused the above very long  thread a couple-three times, and entirely missed the above two beautiful thoughts by what I am pretty sure is emjay. For me, when in the above box, it is almost impossible tell precisely who is speaking.

The first thinking is a beautifully sympathetic description of precisely what I am experiencing, and, I could fill that description further.

emjay, the second thought is a fantastic adaptation to the problem, but, then, if I drop-out, I'll miss out on stuff like happened yesterday.  A beautiful Jihadist guy, who writes radically, radically, beautifully, visited my thread.  I was engaging Nine when Khemikal barged-in and started shoving swine bullshit insults at Nine, I was so embarrassed. Nine is a dynamite writer that I may never hear from again, thanks to Khemical's horrid, destructive sense of humor.

I really, really need your advice quick-like-a-mouse-today emjay, and, will privately e-mail you...Negatio.

Moderator Notice
FTFY

Dropping out... well a time out... would just give you some time to fully practice and get the hang of the technical side of posting and quoting, so that at least that part of the problem of communication could be eliminated... and as a sign of good faith to those that need it. It would also give the staff a rest from having to edit your posts As I said, you can practice to your heart's content in draft PMs until you've nailed it, then come back fully competent in posting and quoting, ready to concentrate solely on your arguments rather than with this continual distraction. The thread will be here when you get back if you do do it.

As for Nine, he was only joking... ie he's not a Muslim as far as I know, so don't panic about that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your truth, or fundamental axiom, is irrelevant, because even if it were assumed to be true..it still wouldn't lead to the preferred conclusion.

Do you understand why that's a problem?  

Your truth, or fundamental axiom, is irrelevant = The most absolutely stuck-on-stupid/insane assertion ever made upon    the face of this earth, i.e., one's fundamental basis for  one's position is irrelevant !!! Fucking total nutcase nonsense!

because even if it were assumed to be true..it still wouldn't lead to the preferred conclusion.  You dip-shit cracker dummy, The axiom employed here, i.e,. All determination is negation; is deemed to be, known to be, infinitely rich, the axiom can lead to an infinite number of indefeasible reasoned arguments for the rest of human history.  The conclusion that Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ are not Deity, is the absolutely INELUCTABLE conclusion!  All your bent cracker pee-brain is capable of is making pure assertion, after pure assertion, after pure assertion; absent reasoned/rational argumentation in support of the anti-thesis position you must posit.

Take out "...determiatio negatio est.."; your flipped-out, Jihadist insulting pee-brain nitwit; you just might pull off a destruction of the most respected, most powerful three words ever enunciated within the known universe. Stupid, fucking crazy stupid, flippant maniac asshole! Negatio.

IOW, no...you don't understand why it would be a problem for a conclusion not to follow from an assertion that was granted the assumption of truth out of charity alone.

[negatio]

Dropping out... well a time out... would just give you some time to fully practice and get the hang of the technical side of posting and quoting, so that at least that part of the problem of communication could be eliminated... and as a sign of good faith to those that need it. It would also give the staff a rest from having to edit your posts As I said, you can practice to your heart's content in draft PMs until you've nailed it, then come back fully competent in posting and quoting, ready to concentrate solely on your arguments rather than with this continual distraction. The thread will be here when you get back if you do do it.

As for Nine, he was only joking... ie he's not a Muslim as far as I know, so don't panic about that.

x

Very rational approach, except that you have just imparted the correct BB code to me; and, anyway the inauthoritative authority that are the censors, known as ''staff'' will successful have me out of here soon, while it is their advice whereby I was using "author", instead of' ' author'.  Negatio.

[emjay]

Dropping out... well a time out... would just give you some time to fully practice and get the hang of the technical side of posting and quoting, so that at least that part of the problem of communication could be eliminated... and as a sign of good faith to those that need it. It would also give the staff a rest from having to edit your posts As I said, you can practice to your heart's content in draft PMs until you've nailed it, then come back fully competent in posting and quoting, ready to concentrate solely on your arguments rather than with this continual distraction. The thread will be here when you get back if you do do it.

As for Nine, he was only joking... ie he's not a Muslim as far as I know, so don't panic about that.

x

Very rational approach, except that you have just imparted the correct BB code to me; and, anyway the inauthoritative authority that are the censors, known as ''staff'' will successful have me out of here soon, while it is their advice whereby I was using "author", instead of' ' author'.  Negatio.

It doesn't matter if you use "author" instead of 'author', since it just automatically converts it into 'author' in the former case. But whatever you do, as long as you have exactly two of them, and not mixed and matched types, it should be fine. So either two ", or two ', but not " and '.

The staff doesn't want you out, they just want to help. The staff here are very very objective and fair, and people are only ever banned for breaking the rules, not for personal reasons or for having unpopular opinions.

[LadyForCamus]

And the Little Rik Award for 2018 goes to.....

Jor, shhhh!  You’re only going to incentivize LR! 😝

[negatio]

Your truth, or fundamental axiom, is irrelevant = The most absolutely stuck-on-stupid/insane assertion ever made upon    the face of this earth, i.e., one's fundamental basis for  one's position is irrelevant !!! Fucking total nutcase nonsense!

because even if it were assumed to be true..it still wouldn't lead to the preferred conclusion.  You dip-shit cracker dummy, The axiom employed here, i.e,. All determination is negation; is deemed to be, known to be, infinitely rich, the axiom can lead to an infinite number of indefeasible reasoned arguments for the rest of human history.  The conclusion that Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ are not Deity, is the absolutely INELUCTABLE conclusion!  All your bent cracker pee-brain is capable of is making pure assertion, after pure assertion, after pure assertion; absent reasoned/rational argumentation in support of the anti-thesis position you must posit.

Take out "...determiatio negatio est.."; your flipped-out, Jihadist insulting pee-brain nitwit; you just might pull off a destruction of the most respected, most powerful three words ever enunciated within the known universe. Stupid, fucking crazy stupid, flippant maniac asshole! Negatio.

IOW, no...you don't understand why it would be a problem for a conclusion not to follow from an assertion that was granted the assumption of truth out of charity alone.

[quote = 'Khemikal']

x
[/quote]
Oh, now, All determination is negation. is given/granted truth on the basis of just charity only..now you add-in charity...Your sapientality appears to proceed by random free association, and, a rigid type like me cannot deal with the blurry form of flux that is you random raving imaginings! Get the fuck off my fucking case, assbreath! Negatio.

[LadyForCamus]

LOL. *popcorn*

@Negato, how do you know what Khemical’s breath smells like?

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW, no...you don't understand why it would be a problem for a conclusion not to follow from an assertion that was granted the assumption of truth out of charity alone.

x

Oh, now, All determination is negation. is given/granted truth on the basis of just charity only..now you add-in charity...Your sapientality appears to proceed by random free association, and, a rigid type like me cannot deal with the blurry form of flux that is you random raving imaginings!  Get the fuck off my fucking case, assbreath! Negatio.

I'm on the case of your argument, which, in addition to it's many other deficiencies, is a complete non sequitur.

A state off affairs where the truth of an assertion is irrelevant to the conclusion.

[negatio]

Very rational approach, except that you have just imparted the correct BB code to me; and, anyway the inauthoritative authority that are the censors, known as ''staff'' will successful have me out of here soon, while it is their advice whereby I was using "author", instead of' ' author'.  Negatio.

It doesn't matter if you use "author" instead of 'author', since it just automatically converts it into 'author' in the former case. But whatever you do, as long as you have exactly two of them, and not mixed and matched types, it should be fine. So either two ", or two ', but not " and '.

The staff doesn't want you out, they just want to help. The staff here are very very objective and fair, and people are only ever banned for breaking the rules, not for personal reasons or for having unpopular opinions.

x

Yes, of course I would never mix up '' and'.  It is really really getting on my nerves that we are being observed by this "staff'' constantly, I got a snide remark from "staff" in the little green box, after writing something to Abaddon that was centrally  important to me, and cleared an enormous ongoing problem.  You are so right, I could use a break, this has been as horrid an experience as it has been s a great experience.  Duane

[Abaddon_ire]

Negatio,

You claim to present an ontological disproof of a deity. Nobody can make head nor tail of it and we are mostly atheists here anyway.

What is your objective? Presenting your "killer" argument cant be it. You have fought tooth and nail to avoid that.

You have even gone so far as to wehittle everyone's time in service to...something. You have stated that your ontocobblers argument stands on its own merits but it has no merits.

So why are you here posting this word salad.

I can simply state that I am here entirely by accident, and having wandered in found myself quite liking a wide range of fellow atheists posting here. I like it.

You, on the other hand, rocked up with a wall of abstruse text that nobody could parse purporting to have an ontobollocks disproof of a particular deity.

Clearly, you have no interest in expounding any of your ideas, in fact you have repeatedly stated that you will not do so under any circumstance, hence the quote fail fiasco that rumbles on. TO THIS DAY.

Can you even attempt to explain all that, or shall we consider it an example of the sunk cost fallacy? Because I am not buying that anyone is this idiotic without intent.