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?

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.

I does not matter why this God thought to employ his law in order to determine the children of Israel to conduct themselves on such  and such a wise, what matters is that he was incorrect in thinking that a given, external, objective, factual state of affairs, like a language of law, would or could be a means to controlling the children of Israel. A human consciousness is a nothingness which is absolutely free because its nothingness insulates it from all processes exterior to it; Neil McCauley, who has become a radically successful thief, understands that his freedom insulates him from the world, he does not obey law, law in actuality cannot be obeyed, he is not and will not be determined to action or inaction by law, which gives us the ''criminal'', not obeying law is not criminal, rather, merely impossible, nonetheless all suffer under the illusion that language of law is determinative of our conduct, we suffer from what is really a jurisprudential delusion, which, being polite, I have called an illusion, whereby we are totally stuck and absolutely convinced that law is, from the outside, controlling our actions, which is an ontologically incorrect position, because, in reality, a reality which delusion misses, all determination is negation, and, jurisprudence is deluded. Mc Cauley is not deluded, he has gut knowledge of what he is as an absolutely free being, he can rob and steal and completely ignore the law, that is what freedom is, freedom is not and cannot be navigated from somewhere outside of itself, via an external and objectively given brute reality like law.  It will be very very very difficult for you to understand how and why law is not an efficacy among men, J., because you are a totally positivistically oriented person; Jurgen Habermas has constructed a theoretical construct which he calls ''objectivistic illusion", whereby he critiques the scientistic world view, we humans can be so radically stuck on our viewpoint, that it becomes nigh impossible to see our weltanschauung to be mistaken.------ It seems simple enough to me, if you have Moses come down the mountain, bearing tablets inscribed with Yahweh's law, just written with Yahweh's own finger, in stone, the inference is inescapable, Yahweh is clearly thinking the language inscribed upon the tablets is an efficacy whereby to determine me to do the things he desires of me...I explained, at length, why I have to use the abstruse language of the theoretical instrumentation I employ, it is a game of absolute hardball wherein I am engaged, why would I soften/dilute/dull my weaponry ?! When I first encountered Sartre's writing in 1970 it was so very radically difficult for me that I knew that I was at a total loss to comprehend it, there was no intermediate language at hand whereby to follow the radically unusual language I had just encountered, which comes, so to speak, from the other side of the looking glass, the negative side, no, I could only keep reading and re-reading, and, read further into the text, and do an intense study of the meaning of each term and each concept, until finally beginning to see what it was about, but, even though it was unintelligible to me, it was not per se unintelligible.  Tell me, J., can you describe to me precisely how you ''obey law'', can you put that ''how'' into language ? So glad to hear from you Jormungandr ! Negatio.