Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

---

The assertion that law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action.

I don't have to be a professional philosopher or a neurobiologist to call massive bullshit on that one.

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 

......The Law™

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 
Because a magistrate could fine you, confiscate your real estate; jail you.  However the judge can only be acting on the basis of his personal project either to do so , or not; and even though the judge thinks he is determining to punish you on the basis of law, he is mistaken, because mere language of law does not, cannot, affect anyone  to do anything.  It is my responsibility to demonstrate to our extant legal system, that the doctors of jurisprudence who operate the system, are suffering the illusion that their language of law is determining them to act against persons, when, in fact, the language of law is not a determinative agent, and, it is and only, and can only be that these doctors of jurisprudence are acting, in each case, purely on the basis of their own personal project to prosecute, or convict, or punish.  The DA has the option to charge you with a crime, or not.  It is not the law written against growing weed that moves the DA to either alternative, it is his own personal consciousness, thus, we do not have a system of law, but, rather, a hierarchical caste system wherein certain persons get to pursue personal projects for the sake of punishing others, and for the sake of bringing funds into the "justice'' system. I want to expose their jurisprudential illusion.

---

---

Negatio,
Clearly you misunderstood me. You had it, then you assumed to know what was making my head hurt. And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't your interpretation of the law that was making my head hurt. It was indeed, your newbie use of the quoting system here. Please don't read any more into it than that.

Joods, If you get a chance, please view page twenty of my thread because I am just now getting a bit more of the hang of it, and the pages are starting to look somewhat less nuts !  Thanks, Duane

---

---

Anyway negatio, I'm gradually working my way through your OP but my first concern is that it looks like your theory is dependent on accepting a certain theory of consciousness, which looks like a dualist theory to me. Is that correct? I'm a hard determinist, so where the brain is concerned, to me consciousness at all times reflects brain states which are physical. Whether those brain states are forward looking (ie imagination or expectations) or backward looking (memories), they are still always physically encoded in the neural networks of the brain. So based on the small amount you've written about this 'ex nihilo' theory in your OP... ie granting that a full understanding would only come from reading Spinoza or Sartre... it looks most likely to me that we're going to fundamentally disagree on the nature of consciousness. I may have misunderstood, but that's all I think I can really gather at the moment, without reading Spinoza and Sartre. But basically if that's the case, that's not really a discussion I'm interested in having, because ultimately this whole site is a never ending argument between determinists and non-determinists.

emjay    Please check out page 19 and post #181 on my thread, where I posted the rewritten  Part I of my essay, which is written much much clearer.  No, you do not have to bother to fully read Spinoza and Sartre, that would be much too much ! Thank You.  Duane

In setting forth my position I concentrate on the way we humans progress toward the future and transcend our past, i.e., "double nihilation", and, even though processes transpire at the cellular level, we humans still enact projects toward attaining our future, and, thereby, transcend and make the present our past.  Perhaps determinist cerebral cellular processes mediate the free projection of consciousness toward the future.  It is indifferent what we call our sapientality, an "autopoietic self-referential system", or, "consciousness", we still  perform actions within the sociosphere, whatever the underlying neural/chemical processes are which mediate our intentionality at the cellular level.  Nonetheless, we agree that we make choices and do intentional actions, i.e., if we so agree, we can proceed  irregardless of what transpires at the cellular level.  Anyway, please read my latest script, it concerns free human action, however that action may ultimately biologically originate at the microscopic level.

Moderator Notice
Removed accidental extra quote