Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

The only disproof of god that needs concern anyone is that there is no proof of god's existence.

This statement has a beautiful, far out, appearance. However, mere absence of proof cannot, does not, constitute a disproof. A disproof of God as we currently see him would have to, in fact, be constructed, in language. Disproof does  not simply reside in absence of proof.  Thank you Kit ! Negatio.

---

The language employed isn't the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents.

No shit, Dick Tracy ! If I were to take a guess, while trying to put myself in the shoes of Khemikal's idiosyncratic perspectival view, to pursue what he thinks he sees in my OP, I, on first try, at guessing what serious problem(s) Khemikall's consciousness is imagining, I would immediately leap into describing the most outrageous of possible possibilities reqarding what those problems are; I, personally, think one could be: So boldly asserting that my weird fucking language is efficient to accomplish a theoretical destruction of the very most fundamental and mistaken presupposition employed by doctors of jurisprudence/jurisprudence...right, it is not the weird fucking language, it is the devastation which a successful employment of the language could wreak within our sociosphere.  An absolute theoretical destruction of jurisprudence could be alike a destructive tidal wave, smashing the fuck out of what we now employ as the very basis of our civilization; yea, that could be a fucking problem Khemikal , no fucking shit ! However, that is how Abraham Lincoln eventually won the Presidency, he destroyed the existing American civilization, and, instituted a religion of law in America...read his biographers...I want to overthrow ontological unintelligibility in the American religion that is law...thereby we Americans might, once again, breathe the sweet air of Liberty via becoming reflectively ontologically free, i.e., by learning how human freedom actually transpires via human consciousness, not, via law....

the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents. 
More consequences of the OP: The OP kills all the lawyers, en mass,accomplishing Shakespeare's exhortation urging all lawyers be killed.
The OP is an unassailable and indefeasible existential ontological theory of civilization. 
Now, to read Abaddon__ire's most recent post on this thread...glad to hear from him, was sure he was finally through with me once and for all, because I am doing such strange stuff with BB code for referencing auteurs...

---

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

Ah, the consequences of erudite vernacular utilised irrespective of necessity.

Indeed. Ontology simply is the study of that which has "being" or "existence".

Thus the ontological argument for the existence of god rotates around claims of things which exist and the conclusion which might be drawn from that. An example would be the Kalam Cosmological argument for god. It roughly goes like this (there are variations)

Premise 1. Everything which exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

Objection 1: If the cause was god as you claim, then what caused god.

Note that in it's raw state, the conclusion is that the universe had a cause. Kalam has nothing to say about what that cause might be. 

So the god-botherers start adding terms.  

Premise 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

The special pleading for god not having a beginning has started.

At each step, critics will raise objections with the god nuts responding by adding further and further qualifiers until you end up with a theist actually claiming that the answer was "beyond the event horizon of the formless" whatever that means. Somehow, ontological arguments grow until they become unintelligible under the shear weight of word density. They reach a strange kind of critical dictionary mass at which point they implode and nobody has a clue what any of it means on either side of the argument.

Now, the ontological disproof of god starts from a similarly simple place.

Premise 1. Everything which exists may or may not have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore may or may not have a cause.

Simple enough, but inevitably it ends up in exactly the same place, a word salad that nobody can make head nor tail of as we see in the OP.

It is all a rabbit hole of navel gazing that gets nobody anywhere, wastes a lot of time and achieves nothing because the fundamental conclusion leads nowhere.

No matter how complicated one makes the semantic acrobatics, the conclusion is useless in either case. This is, of course, the reason why I give neither ontological argument any credence. They are both an intellectual cul-de-sac wearing an Armani suit.

Beautiful Abaddon, however, my theory is acausal.  I predicate my disproof-theory, which is only a theory regarding, Yahweh/Jehovha/Christ's non-deity, upon human consciousness, which is nothing; it is self-consistent to speculate that my consciousness, a nothing, is the product of a deistic nothingness, which created me simply by placing nothingness into the heart of concrete material cosmic substance; I am a hiatus, an open stage, whereupon the universe appears, probably made precisely in the image of this as yet unthought, unknown creator deity....
 I am an agnostic, and, I am thinking that, clearly, some process transpiring in the cosmos has made me, clearly I am here, so, something indubitably made us, and, that as yet unknown something, perhaps an unknown nothing, an is, or a not, probably a not, is, somehow, my originator.x  Thanks a million Abaddon__ire ! Negatio. Am shutting the generator down now to preserve fuel...