Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

One need not ontologically disprove something for which there is no credible evidence.

Even given that historians and archeologists cannot obtain actual historical evidence that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ actually existed, the thing is, that millions upon millions of human beings have BELIEVED in these alleged deities for several thousand years now; and that is enough to warrant disproving that something for which there is no credible evidence, upon purely theoretical grounds. Thank you Astreja. Negatio.

---

You lost me at ontological.

Yes, indeed, Iwnkyaaimi, that is an ongoing and serious problem for me in  my discussions with friends,  whom I have known for decades, when we interact over my theories, which high-falutin theoretical language makes such constant reference to 'ontological', in my intently repetitious fashion, on and on, over and over again.
''onto'' simply means being; and, ''-ology" merely means ''the study of'', thus, the study of being, the being being studied is the human being, thus ''ontology'' , the study of human being. Thank You Iwnkyaaimi !  Negatio.

---

Frog pants fly unstable in laundry math egregiousness = no god.

Thus, via this formula, you were disparagingly equating  my writing to an unintelligible ensemble of apparently disconnected terms, adding-up to a ridiculous disproof of God, when, in fact, everything which is set-forth via my particularly strangely appearing language. is nothing more than the employment of theoretical constructs which, in the instance of Spinoza's dictum/construct, has been with us since the seventeenth century, without falling to theoretical destruction by other thinkers, for four hundred years !  And, the Sartreian theoretical stuff actually won Sartre the Nobel prize in 1960, and, he was so radically a rebel, he absolutely refused the Nobel prize !  Can you imagine that !  Thank you mh.brewer; P.S., this response has been so long in coming, because I use to have no idea how to properly respond, and, I was at a total loss to understand your formula, and I was under constant attack from a multitude of members, and, Mathilda advised me that it appeared that I was on the verge of being formally accused of being a troll, I immediately quit this forum, and, then, Bennyboy accosted me delightfully, so I re-engaged the forum, and,  had the piss beat out of my by a Saintly member, who was so horrid to me he radically pissed me off, and, then, when I calmed down, and we calmed down, I finally attained the bare minimum of insight into how to begin to employ BB code, and, to begin to respond in accordance with acceptable procedure, and, you, yourself had presented me with such a horrid accusation wherein drugs were , according to you, without question, accountable for my radically idiosyncratic language, that, until I calmed-down, and, had the tools for interaction, I could do nothing but incur the ongoing disdain of other members, and, then, you started positing a radically reasonable and ongoing rapid-fire series of questions, which, after a while, won my respect. Now, I post directly to you as I employ the site to experiment with properly quoting authors, and, consequently, I now have hear absolutely nothing from you, perhaps, thereby, I totally alienated you this morning. Negatio.

---

Dude, put your cursor below all the existing text when making a reply. It will solve the problem you are having with your posts.

Yea, but you didn't say that I then had to click, so, I remained in ignorance...