Ontological Disproof of God

[Angrboda]

Yes ! Jormungander, another direct point-blank dead-on hit ! It is absolutely and indubitably correct to impute to me subscription to what you call "radical freedom", I call it "absolute ontological freedom", which is a state of affairs wherein each one of us is absolute ----an absolute freedom-----able at any moment to totally drop everything, and, immediately head-off in a completely fresh direction, if you've got the guts, precisely like Robert De Niro kept repeating saying was absolutely incumbent upon him, given his lifestyle, in the piece of cinema named "Heat". There is absolutely no basis upon which to disagree here with Neil Mc Cauley, that's it, absolutely, that's the way it simply fucking is----he can instantly secrete nothingness between himself and any possible situation; he's an octopus, wham ! a cloud of ink and he's outa here. Absolutely nothing outside him can even remotely graze his naturally radical freedom, not even the man and his prison...Negatio.

---

---

Do you see the self-inconsistent/contradictory form of flux here,whereby you both posit against, and, then, for, an absolute freedom, and, thereby, ultimately support the position, i.e., Sartre's, which was originally asserted to be mistaken. 

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre. If my view is correct, then enough said. However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own. I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction. For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs. Otherwise you are just wasting your time.