Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

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 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.

On second thought emjay, Perhaps we should be careful not to presuppose that consciousness is not smaller than human cells, yes, of course consciousness viably underlies cells, inhabits cells, directs cells; it must be...I cannot imagine a different consciousness for my sapientality and, for each of billions of cells...perhaps I have billions of consciousnesses, one for each cell !?

---

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 the bad faith limb 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.