RE: Ontological Disproof of God
August 25, 2018 at 9:08 am
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2018 at 9:49 am by negatio.)
(August 25, 2018 at 8:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 'Argumentum ad hominem argument' is redundant. You're welcome.
Boru
Yes indeed, sort of...it is an error Boru...but, looking at it, it is fucking cool...I like it. Duane
(August 25, 2018 at 8:46 am)negatio Wrote:Correction SaStrike, it is #184 on page 19.(August 25, 2018 at 5:07 am)SaStrike Wrote: Don't mean to be negative here but the quoting was only a minor issue. The major issue is the communication barrier that exists for readers reading your OP. So looks like someone is gonna need to teach you effective communication next. Well done to whoever taught you quoting.Thank you SaStrike. I taught myself, finally, what you guys call quoting/replying, accidentally. I was told by a member to click Reply and to find the bottom of the page below all the posts. I did, and, when I got there my figure/ground perception did not see the bottom of the page in the way the member thought I would...where is the top of a tree...then, days later, when it sank in a bit, I tried again. I saw this thin little almost indistinguishable bottom margin, clicked there, a cursor appeared, and then I knew.
The OP is intelligible language, and there is no "communication barrier" standing between it and members. It a simple function of mistakenly submitting existential phenomenological language to a series of persons with no foundation in that language; precisely alike my situation within the forum, there is no communication barrier between me and the forum, there is only my lack of the foundation in computer language whereby I am not comprehending basic functions within the forum.
It is a radical insult to say that someone needs to teach me effective communication ! I am a radically effective communicator, I just mistakenly presented a revolutionary ontological disproof of Deity, predicated upon nothing, to a forum without training in existential ontology. No worries SaStrike. A total rewrite of Part I of the OP now resides on page 19 of my thread as #181, which I wish I had known how to double space on this site, such a simple thing, and yet so unattainable for an ordinary rustic,who happens to appear here in the midst of a series of people quick to posit argumentum ad hominem argument and,presume themselves to be supermen,who merely need condescend to my marginal level, and heal me of the unfortunate communicativedystrophy which I have somehow developed along the way...Negatio. P.S. Could this site be just a tad user unfriendly for newbies !?
(August 24, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote:Khemikal, the situation you and I now find ourselves in is beautiful, because we are at opposite extremes here. You are an ordinary civilized human being for whom ''the law" is a powerful efficacy in your life, and,you think it is the reason that you will not grow weed.What I am saying is that it is not, it cannot be the letter of the law which is a powerful efficacy. Actually, it is the jail; it is the fine; it is the confiscation of property; it is the punishment wherein efficacy resides, not in the law-language, which language is the means whereby you are condemned to punishment.(August 24, 2018 at 3:15 pm)negatio Wrote: 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.
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™
We may continue with this interchange, and, eventually I may be able to give you more insight regarding why I am certain that, indeed, "...law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action." You are being coerced and intimidated by all the apparatus of punishment whereby you could be subject to the destruction of your life.
