Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

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

---

---

---

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.

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 !?

Remember that you can select "preview post", to view how your reply is going to look. This avoids posting something in a messed-up state, giving you the chance to correct it first. (It keeps everything you've typed ready to edit, or to submit if you are happy with the results.)

Precisely, robvalue, I did that once, and, you are correct, I am sure, hoping the goddamn computer robot, who thinks he is smarter than I, will, ultimately let me use my language in my way.  I usually check my writing as close as possible even when tired, and, when I realized this robot dude was wreaking havoc, and making me look stupid I got all shook-up, and, your advice is the solution ! Thanks a million. Negatio.