Ontological Disproof of God

[bennyboy]

bennyboy  I have attempted, for decades, to cast my position in ordinary language , which has ultimately proven to be impossible.  I wish I could set forth my position in simple positivist terms, for ordinary positivistically  oriented persons; however, setting-forth a disproof of Judaeo/Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language, rather, destruction/disproof of extant Deity requires employment of the language of  determination as negation, because, the several putative Gods in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation, and, I do realize, it is very difficult to follow, at first glance, language which describes the origin of human action as a wholly negative proceeding. The language of negation which I employ is, in fact, radically simple, just not to or for those who are encountering the language game of human determination to action as negation, for, the very first time... I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to consider my writing...which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a boy's high school historicity;  rather, it is predicated  upon many decades of studying the most difficult writings extant in our world, i.e., that of J.P. Sartre's Being and Nothingness, et. al.  Duane C.

"bennyboy, I have tried for decades to explain my position in ordinary language, but this has ultimately proven impossible. I wish I could explain myself in simple positivist terms; however, disproving the idea of a Judeo-Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language. Rather, it requires using language of determination as negation, because the God ideas in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation. I, on the other hand. . . "

I'd recommend the following rules:
1) Avoid using rare terms when more common terms will do. Pull out the vocabulary only for technical terms used in a given area of study.
2) Limit sentences to about three clauses unless you have a compelling reason to increase complexity. Most people can process about what they can read in 7 seconds as a single idea, and can symbolize only a few complex ideas at one time.
3) Avoid metacommentary or redundant language. For example, you didn't really need to use the term "putative" at all, especially followed by "in question." Cool word, but unneeded.
4) For online forums, lead with a point summary or just a couple of tenets, and see if you get any interest before bringing out the full proof.

I don't mean to insult or to be pedantic, but if you really do have an interest in having your proof discussed and talked about, you'll have to make the material a little more approachable. Being right isn't good enough-- you have to be heard.

---

I have no trouble understanding Sartre. 

I had tremendous trouble understanding Sartre.  Far too much density for what in the end turn out to be reasonably simple ideas.  Especially annoying were the constant references to other thinkers in laying out his foundation-- I don't particularly want to read through all the foundational texts of a field in order to understand what the guy's talking about.

I'd contrast him with Camus, whose ideas while sometimes philosophically challenging, can probably be read with good effect by a reasonably clever 12 year-old.

Or maybe I'm just not that good a reader. . .