Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language ?

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

At last. Don't dick with the tags. Always put your text outside the tags, either before or after, never in the middle of any tag.

On to the meat of your post.

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.

Wrong. The problem is not language, the problem is that you insisted upon presenting your thoughts in such a comprehensively garbled fashion that they were totally unreadable. This was, of course, compounded by your use of imaginary words that people will likely be unfamiliar with. E.g. "negatite". It isn't really a word at all, merely an egotistical invention of Sartres.

The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.

Perhaps you think it is really well organised and maybe it is inside your head. But what you have presented here would garner an immediate F- at best. It is sloppy, ill-disciplined crap which is irretrievably destroyed by your stubborn refusal to learn proper formatting and basic politeness.

My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...

That I am aware of, the ontological disproof of god first appeared in 1948 so you are hardly original. It seems that all you have done is toss a lot of word salad on a tired old argument.

The ontological proof/disproof of god is exactly the same. All one needs to do is reverse some key phrases to convert the disproof into a proof, or vice-versa. This alone demonstrates how utterly useless the ontological argument is for either case. Either way, the glaring flaws remain.

As an atheist, I find the ontological argument in either direction to be about as useful as a chocolate crash helmet and pretty much as impressive.

I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

First, put the text you want inside "quote" tags like this...

Code:

[quote]Your citation goes here.[/quote]

Second, hurling insults at your interlocutors is unlikely to win friends and influence people.