Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

I'm sorry, leaving this thread it's making my head hurt worse than my 14 year old does.

I know you gave it a decent try negatio but perhaps if you spent sometime looking at how other posts go, it might help you to familiarize yourself with things here.

Good luck though.

Joods,  I have repeatedly read what you said here, and, at first I thought that my lack knowledge of how to quote and reply to members, and the resultant horrible appearance of this thread, gives you a headache worse than dealing with your teenager does, which prompted me to do more study regarding operating within this forum; however, now, it has dawned on me that what is giving you a headache is the apparently radically outrageous things I am stating here, regarding law.
I do not understand if by suggesting I look at other threads in the forum I may learn to refrain from saying certain things, or, might learn more about properly responding to and properly quoting other members ?  Duane

---

That has some truth to it, but it's not an absolute truth, which is why you need to reformulate your argument.  Your argument, as stated, depends on it being absolute.  A general rule that holds.

It simply doesn't.  

Law is at least efficient enough to keep me from doing something I want to do, and I'm just discussing human law, here.

The contention is that law, in the general sense, demonstrates incompetence on the part of a god...but..again in the general...it doesn't.  It may in reference to some specific law.  Ultimately I'd agree with you, that god is awfully dumb for a god and some of that can be seen in gods laws.  I'm suggesting that your particular line of reasoning doesn't demonstrate that.  Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it......

Me man, me find law sometimes determinitive.  You wrong.  Feel me?

(That one was straight up for you, Emjay, lol)

Are you calling me dumb? Oh right, I already did

I'm gradually getting there, so I probably will comment on it at some point. But till then I'll happily take the Khemikal Digest

Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it...... 
Precisely what is unsound about what I am maintaining; just to assert that it is not sound is not enough, you ought to explain your assertion.  Thank You. Negatio.

Moderator Notice
Removed extra quotes