Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

@ Negatio
So you really don't give a shit about letting other people understand your arguments. I mean, it's ok. But to be honest, if you can't take the criticism, stay out of the forum.

As I probably made clear, English is not my first language, and your style of writing (clearly reminiscent of the classical style of certain Latin and Greek authors I've had the dubious pleasure to translate in high school) is way too abstruse to make me even consider the possibility of trying to make sense of it!

Seeing as we're 18 (or however many) pages into this thread, and this same objection, along with many others, has been met with accusations of "ad hominem" attacks, and you are somehow still borking quotes all over the place, I am even more inclined to doubt in your good faith.

Lucanus,  Consider the subjoined :
Part II.
1.  A profound error is transpiring in law.  The error has been named "jurisprudential illusion".  Recognition of the jurisprudential illusion error was achieved through a study of J.P. Sartre's theory of origin of human action. Sartre, in turn, derived his theory of origination of human action from his study of Baruch Spinoza's (16  -    ) phrase,
''...determinatio negatio est...", known as the infinitely rich Spinozistic dictum, which, in English, is"...determination is negation...". Sartre, however, quoted Spinoza's dictum as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", which was Hegel's rendition of Spinoza's dictum, which, in English, reads:  "All determination is negation.".

---

@negatio: Okay, thanks for your answer Glad you liked my question! I agree that the utter stupidity of Yahweh would appear to discount the claims made about it.

What do you mean by the ''it'' as the end of your last sentence robvalue ?  Yes, I liked your questions, however your writing is cryptic, whereas mine is merely abstruse ! Thanks. Negatio.

---

If you want people to respond to your position instead of making it about you, you’ll need to learn to speak common English. If you’re incapable of communicating your message, it’s no one’s fault but your own.

Losty, I once knew "common" English; lost fluency therein; admitted I could not write in common English; encountered the medicinal dialogic dialectic now transpiring in the philosophy section of the forum; and, was beaten into consciousness of your so called ''common'' English; i.e., see my last post to Lucanus. Thanks once again for the work it took you in making my site appear to be normal ! Negatio.

---

---

Yes, brewer, this, your freshest argumentum ad hominem, you so kindly assert that I fall all apart, and then, unfortunately, I communicate better when I am all fallen apart, and, whereas you were for my communicating better, as you put it, you are now saying that communicating better is an unfortunate occurrence . You are not being consistent.

Precisely, my seeming intention to be on high is indeed a fucking drag; being Deity is a horrid bitch.

I actually missed you brewer !  You never have answered my question. Are you a counsellor/attorney/officer of the court/an esquire ?  Thank you , sir. Negatio.

Your getting closer, I am something.

brewer  Very interesting, you are ''something'', never.  In existentialism it is maintained consciousness, a nothingness, which is what you and I are, is a not, which, in fact can never, ever, Be, anything. Consciousness is perpetually not what it is and what it is not, i.e., a constant thrust into an absent future as a perpetual engagement in nothingness, doubly nihilating as non-being past a past, and unto a not-yet, perpetually remaking itself anew, daily; thus, one can not be, is not, "Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals"; or, a Philosopher; or a thief; a murderer...for by the time you characterize a certain person as being such and such, he is already elsewhere, for, he is a perpetual elsewhere...i.e., freedom.  Brewer, Brewer, Brewer.  The enigmatic Brewer...Negato.