RE: Ontological Disproof of God
August 29, 2018 at 5:36 am
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2018 at 5:48 am by negatio.)
Quote: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.It is not feeling that I am employing, if I had written "I feel...'' in a philosophical anthropology course, I would have been in deep do do wherein a few females in the class found themselves to be. It is strictly a function of the omnis determinatio est negatio theoretical construct. Given that all determination is negation, our human determination to act on such and such a wise is purely a double engagement in nothingness, as I explained when describing the double nihilation, which double nihilation is the only means my human consciousness has of originating, of upsurging an act.
Thus, since double nihilation is the solitary mode whereby human beings can create their acts in the world, there being no other way, the positivist religious and judicial view, that God, or a Legislature, can determine absolutely free men to action by a positive, factual, given "law", i.e., by a state of affairs already here and established in the world, is not, cannot be, viable, for human determination to act, or, to refrain from action,proceeds via conscious double nihilation, only. x
(August 20, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Astreja Wrote:(August 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm)negatio Wrote: 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.
(August 20, 2018 at 9:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: 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?
(August 28, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Oh, I get it, you just gave it the wrong title and put it into the wrong section.I have difficulty following this, that, and, now it. What it are you referencing Khemikal ?!
