Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

It looks like your quoting skills have improved, congrats on that. If you need any more help let me know. I usually fix people’s misquotes but I have been lazy in this thread, so sorry for that. I don’t mind sending you screenshots and detailed descriptions on quoting. I know it seems trivial but it really does matter to a lot of people that we can tell who said what. Anyway, thanks for working on it.

Wow, thanks man.  I want to comprehend this stuff so that I can move forward with theoretical considerations.  If you could help me out that would be wonderful, but it has to be done in some special was or other, because when I look at computer code it is totally meaningless and unintelligible to me !  Thanks a million.  Negatio.

---

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.

Saying this over and over won't make it any more true than it was the first time.  As I said, your argument is incapable of dealing with a brute fact.  This is a flaw to be fixed, not a hill to die defending.

I am absolutely failing to comprehend what you mean by your contention that my position cannot deal with whatever the hell a "brute fact" is.  Have you ever seen a 'fact', a unicorn ?  I am  pretty sure I could deal with your brute.  Describe it to me dude.