Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Jehovah's mistaken notion that he could efficiently/successfully reign as God, over men,by positing a series of laws, which, he mistakenly thought, would function either to determine man's conduct directly, via the word,or, move men to determine themselves, by law, to act in accordance with law. When, in fact, human conduct does not originate on the basis of given states of affairs like a language of law.

Your objection doesn't appear to be wholly true, but it wouldn't matter if it were..since the judeo christian god was aware that the law would not be absolutely compelling in the first place.  The narrative of vicarious redemption practically revolves around the alleged fact that none of us were capable of being righteous before the law.  

That's a pretty tough spot for an argument to be in..when there's a question as to whether or not it's sound..... or...... you can grant the assertion and it still won't lead to the stated conclusion.

Khemikal  I am going to use you as a guinea pig to see if I am getting code for quoting book references, you are the only one who appears to be online at the moment..

determinatio negatio est

---

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.

---

---

J.  Attacking belief in God is not my goal. My goal is to demonstrate, via explaining what a certain school of philosophy deems to be the true modus operandi of human origination of an act, that the gods I named are not Deity, because they clearly do not understand how their putative creation, man, ticks when it comes to originating acts.

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.

---

your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I do not want to prove anything, in person, to believers.  After a long conversation with a wonderful Amish man, I subsequently apologized to him for doing such a totally fucking rude asshole thing as presenting, directly in his wonderful face, an ontological disproof of God.  I simply wont to set forward, in writing, a viable, unquestionable, philosophical theory of the absence of Deity in the character of Jesus Christ, because I am sick of hearing how I should sign my entire life over to this Christ dude, and let him run my fucking life, for the past seventy years now !  I am an absolute ontological freedom in possession of a reflective understanding of my absolute ontological freedom, I want to attempt to run my own life, not drop that life and become some fuck's underling ! ; because he is God, and died for my fucking sins !

---

likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.

nothing could withstand my destruction, not challenge, its too fucking true because it derives right out of the personal ontological structure of everyone, which is an indubitable structure, meaning the double nihilation.

---

contradict Sartrehow on earth would you do a theoretical destruction of omins determinatio est negatio !?