Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

You've completely lost me here, I do not follow you, what brute fact ?

The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.  The very moment it changes..I will be growing copious amounts of weed.  Law is not completely efficacious when it comes to human determination, granted..but it's not entirely without efficacy, either.  You've built your argument around a general rule that doesn't hold.  

"...you might even have misattributed the incompetence central to your argument..."
You write excellently, however, at first glance your statements are not immediately apprehensible, I think that by ''misattributed'' you mean that I am mistaken in saying Christ is mistaken !

I'm suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

In plain language, and playing the part of an apologist;

"Didn't god know that law was an imperfect tool?  That it would predictably fail a great portion of humanity - those for whom law does not drive their determination?  Isn't this base incompetence?"
-Man's base incompetence.   None are righteous, not even one.  Yes, god did know that.

I'm suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

What I am saying is that the language of law per se is not efficient to determine our acts, and,  nonetheless,it is precisely the language of law which is always the basis of any ascription of fault which a prosecutorial officer may bring against you; the language of law is precisely that whereby a magistrate, or a jury, will both mediate and decide your fate, if and when you are at jeopardy; and, the police; the prosecutorial officer; the magistrate, and the jury, all believe it is the law which is guiding and determining their actions against you in a court of law;---- what I am saying is that in fact each of these persons who think they are acting in accord with and via law, are, in actuality laboring under an ancient positivist/materialist/causalist illusion, which I call the jurisprudential illusion, via which illusion these persons are completely convinced that the language of law is somehow determining everything they are doing in that courtroom, and/or, they are, by given language of law, are determining themselves to do all the several things they do in that courtroom, regarding the disposition of your particular case; and, I am saying they are deadly seriously believing their language of law is the determinant at operation in the courtroom, when, in fact, they are all performing the existential absurdity of a human being, who is  in reality determined to action by non-existent states of affairs within the mode of action origination which is the double nihilation, claiming, nonetheless,  and mistakenly,that they are being determined in their actions in that courtroom by the being-in-itself that we call the language of law.  Persons cannot possibly be competent to moderate their actions in accordance with law, and, law per se is not comoetaant to determine the acts/actions of human beings, because, human beings are not determined to action by given states of affairs like law(s), rather all human determination is a process of negation transpiring via the human double nihilation.

Moderator Notice
Removed accidental extra quote