Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

You can't defend your OP

No one has yet successfully attempted to achieve a theoretical destruction of the OP, all you guys are able to do is set forth argumentum ad hominin upon argumentum as hominem, completely bent on showing me to be all these horrible things, on and on, now I am " incompetent".
I am totally, completely, entirely without excuse; nor need I make excuses; I am not making excuse/excuses for an incompetence; wow, this just gets more and more and radically solely an argument against my person, and, not my position, which position is predicated upon Spinoza's dictum, and, Sartre's variation and employment of that dictum as "omnis determinatio est negatio''; even if you cannot follow my position solely because you are unable to track my absolutely disdainful attempt to present my position, you would have to be capable of destroying, at the theoretical level, Spinoza's infinitely rich dictum.  I am not making excuses, I am describing the realities of philosophical position positing.  Focus on just one little bit of the OP, e.g., my notion of "jurisprudential illusion", and, focus on overthrowing it...why the radically concentrated and ongoing attempt to impugn my person as a means to overthrowing my position ?!  Argumentum ad hominem is not, cannot be efficient to overthrow a person's position...I am at a total loss to understand why practically everyone attacks my person here ?! It is so ignoble of you...
Did you notice how efficiently I threw/bucked-off  these nerds who are continually attempting to constitute me as a troll ?  I have not heard back from the stupid fucks, I must have made sense to them !
Distinguish my person from my position, attack the position; you've tried J., and you got your fucking ass totally kicked by your own negligent failure to posit an intelligible attack !  Disengage from stupid schoolyard insults !
It was just beginning to appear, here, that the philosophy sector of this forum, is engaged in a live Platonic/Socratic dialogical dialectical interpersonal exchange, regarding questions of interest to persons like Jormungander, I am hoping that is the case...however it appears so many of the persons on this site are so totally bent on expressing hatred, instead of rational dialogic, that I am extremely discouraged.  Why, on earth, the constant and horrid attacks on my person, which in your lingo, is trolling, because it brings alienation/contention among members, not nobly conducted interchange ! ?  Clearly, I have stumbled into a shadowy cave wherein the dwellers see only the false shadows of their own mistaken worldview, and, cannot, will not, attempt to nobly respond to a total stranger, who claims he had previously crawled up out of the cave he once dwelt in, and, acting on his Socratic responsibility to descend back into the cave and, inform the dwellers therein of what wonderful things he has seen, since leaving a shadowy cave.  I will not be told that it is impossible for communication to transpire between a person with legitimate philosophical credentials, to communicate with cave dwellers who appear able only to exhibit absolute hatred in response to his report of what he has seen up in the light outside the cave !  I  can not accept that  ugly prospect, or, do the members think that, probably, I should ? According to the hateful Whateverist, I should no longer bother to respond to member concerns, because, according to W., the cave dwellers just plain do not give a fuck …, however, since I am now prepared to explain my position by continuing a discussion of the Neil lMc Cauley character in the piece of cinema named "Heat", because Neil is Sartre's jargon/language portrayed cinematographically, wherein Neil is this totally free thief wherein...pre-reflectively knowing that he is an absolute freedom, is...
Very very sad. Love; Negatio.




I

---

These are all nothing but excuses for your incompetence.  You can't defend your OP in either jargon or simple language.  Expressing things in jargon doesn't make your position less defeasable, except insofar as it makes it incomprehensible, it just presents a barrier to understanding.  If you'll read real philosophers, they don't talk or write like this.  Even Sartre only used his neologisms after patient introduction of their meaning and plenty of examples.  So you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

And for what it's worth, you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.


Here's another definition that I find useful here.

@negatio: Have you defined what a god / deity is anywhere here?

Robvalue, yes, indeed, I started on that when I informed the members that Deity is, at its simplest, just a hierarchical construct, wherein that which is next higher than one on the continuum of beings, is one's Deity.  This was the view of a Philosopher named Alexander, thus, for instance: God; Man; Khemikal; Cro Magnon man; Neanderthal man … You see.  And, of course, Deity is commonly thought of as that which made/created man...Thanks a million Robvalue, how refreshing to have the opportunity for a civil interchange with a member ! Negatio.

---

you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

a form of language regarded as barbarous, debased, or hybrid.  Yea, I don't know a goddamn fucking thing !  So you see, J., "jargon" does have a perjorative connotation, and, since you clearly did not know that, you're reply entails an incompetence to the degree you lacked  complete apprehension of the term; I suggest you change tack; get off constant attempt to embarrass me via continuously positing fallacious argumentum ad hominem. Admit it J., you are totally and absolutely incapable of rationally, efficaciously, positing anything rational against the OP...now I do see that you are so damned angry with me that you cannot see straight, and, thus the constant, vain, ongoing, ragging...If you could ever get off my case, and, explain why the OP is a piece of shit, I am sure you could soar to heights of philosophical expression which will uplift and edify everyone now participating in the philosophy forum.  Negatio.

Has it crossed your mind even once that this forum may be read by people whose first language is not English? Your writing style, with the endless run-on sentences is needlessly complicated and essentially works as a smokescreen. It actively makes me not care about your arguments, because it makes me feel like you don't give a shit about being understood.

Wow, Lucanus, thank you. Yes, indeed, such a realization totally has not crossed my mind ! Wow, of course.  Indeed, I see.  I, indeed, must apologize; of course I had no idea...Negatio. Wow.