Ontological Disproof of God

[Angrboda]

I still do not understand why you feel that the nihilation which you believe grants us radical freedom is incompatible with the view that men are ably ruled by laws. Given that people do obey laws, in spite of possessing this supposed radical freedom, it would seem you are omitting something.

Secondly, I think you're making an inference about the intentions of God in prescribing laws for men to follow. Retribution is one possible motive for prescribing laws, but since it requires moral desert, it seems this is your primary incompatibility with the supposed nihilative origin of our actions. However there are other potential reasons for prescribing laws which don't contradict this sort of freedom. For example, the goal of laws may be to insure uniformity of conduct by eliminating those whose freedom leads them to violate the laws. Or, it could simply be to remove them from the community to prevent further acts contrary to the substance of said law. Or it could be to provide solace and cohesion to other members of the community. I don't see how any of these aims is at odds with such a nihilatively based freedom, even if such existed (which you haven't really established).

Oh, and as to your use of language, there must exist bridging language which is not dependent on things such as use of ontological jargon or Sartrean neologisms, or else people would not be able to learn these concepts in the first place. So it would seem that your claim that you either cannot use simpler language, or that you would be sacrificing rigor by doing so, seems little more than an affectation.