Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.
Jormungander, that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of the exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is.  However, you are way way ahead of my point of departure, and, of my most essential concern, when you leap to a consideration of bad faith.
I am engaged at the very bottommost, basic, fundamental operation of consciousness, which is the origination of an act...engaged in describing the modus operandi of originative mode which consciousness employs to make its acts, which, is the double nihilation. Believe it or not, this is basic, fundamental, simple, simplest of the several human ontological capacities.  Bad faith is a radically more complex and advanced consideration.  I do not have to go beyond description of my simplest ontological capacity, the origination of an act, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ could not have been Deity.
Jormungandr is being radically incisive and is correct regarding at least one aspect of my position; I have to retreat now, take the time to read her response; write-out my response on a piece of paper;---however, I am remaining at the bottommost point, i.e., at the nihilation which upsurges action...

First I need to correct the first sentence of my first response, to read. "J. that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is."
This second response runs thus:  At first glance I clearly see J. leaping extensively way ahead, into macrocosmic considerations regarding the sociospheric exercise of bad faith; wherein she exhibits some lack of fully correctly differentiating between freedom, and, facticity; and, I see J. inadvertently employing an argument by extension, wherein she puts me way out on the limb of bad faith, whereupon I am not perched, and saws it off ! (The core consideration running
 through the entire OP is the simple double nihilation, and how God and inauthoritative jurisprudential authorities fail to understand that aspect of their ontological structure, and therefore fall into radical error.  They cannot be in bad faith in regard to their conduct, because their error is not intentional, rather, it is merely ignorance of the  pattern of their own ontological structure.)
I may respond again to the very impressive reply, pointing to what I think I saw as an overall contradiction. J. does write in the manner wherein one employs 'this', which makes for extreme difficulty in immediately identifying precisely what she is saying.  Thanks a million Jormungander, you are dynamite. Negatio.

---

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Perhaps so Robvalue,  Nonetheless, entire civilizations going back for thousands of years, right up to the present, have predicated and predicate their civilization upon the mores of Yahweh/Jehovah, and, Jesus Christ.  Biblical scripture is the foundation of billions of lives, right now; I have been living in Amish country for seven years now, and, you should see how dead seriously scripture is taken, thoroughly underlying every aspect of person's lives.  I would not dismiss it as lightly as you !  Ultimately it is indifferent whether or not the characters were actual, what has mattered throughout history is how the personalities have seriously influenced our historicity.  Negatio.

---

@negatio. At this point I think I'd just like to this thread... as in read but not contribute... for two reasons really; 1) I'm just about to start playing a mafia game either today or tomorrow, which will be taking up all my mental energy, and 2) I do have difficulty understanding things, I admit that, and when it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to get things conflated and end up talking and thinking at a different level of description than everyone else, similar to what you've just said about your argument compared to Jörmungandr's. So some people might be talking about plain logic, but where I'm hung up on a much lower level of description, say neurons. Anyway, so just saying I'm backing out now, and will just follow the progress of the argument with Jorm and Khemikal and others from the sidelines, until it hopefully makes sense at some point, and maybe come back in at some later point in the future. But nice to meet you, and well done getting the hang of quoting

Yea, cool emjay. The same level differences came up in a response I made to you last night ,i.e., as the differences in level between brain cells/neurons and consciousness...I had fun saying that perhaps cellular determinist structures underlie free consciousness...Negatio.