Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

You are failing to communicate clearly.

downbeatplumb:  As compared to what ? What series of words would have communicated what I failed to communicate ?  Straight-up assertion does not hunt, as people are wont to say: "That dog won't hunt."
Can you make clear what I failed to make clear ? Show me just one instance which needs more clarity, and, show me, precisely, in language, what that absent clarity should be, or, should have been...Negatio.

---

Okay, bennyboy.  You just gave me a superb and very fair attempted description of what you think I am doing in this forum.  You clearly are an experienced evaluator of papers. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder no way !  Autistic, no way ! Narcissistic, yes, that does seem to make some sense, given the way I have spoken regarding myself, and, I seem to be too great even for my own damn self !I have no experience in this ilk of forum.  I am absolutely ignorant of even of what you guys are talking about regarding quoting other members, and, quoting historical persons.  I am the kind of strange dude that can follow the most abstruse philosophical position, but am a total and absolute failure at understanding how to play Texas hold-em; my friends cannot believe it, I cannot follow the unfolding of the game, it appears to me the rules change with every hand !  I win the money, because I understand the value of the hands, but I envy those who so fully understand the game.Following all this code stuff in regard to referencing appears to be as impossible for me as to achieve attainment of a reflective understanding of Texas hold-em !  When I click of a page as advised by members nothing  happens even remotely like what they are telling me...I am, at this point, pretty totally lost in the middle of the woods regarding how to post my responses, and quote auteurs...\Now is the time for all good men to.'  Goofy 'Sapientality' ...is that it ?I truly was not intending to be rude by placing such an idiosyncratic writing on your forum; I had absolutely no idea it would be deemed rude a priori !I have read all the criticisms of my writing and my recent conduct, and it is mostly good and kind...some persons were so mean and insulting they successfully goaded me and truly pissed me off !Your attempt to  understand what I am doing writing in a fashion which  others take such violent offense to is appreciated.  To think that I am  intentionally hoping to cause problems here, for the sake of attaining some thrill or profit is incorrect.  I do apologize for laying what you guys call a solid wall of text on you, and, I was not trying to do anything against anyone.There are some radically intelligent people here, who have done me a lot of edification.  Surely I want to communicate...I cannot write in the multiplicity of fashions which would be required by all of the several demands members have made...I have always thought the ideal means of setting forth what I want to say would be bit by bit,  in piecemeal fashion...if you view my fragments they are mostly small and discrete units, attempting to say what I wish bit by bit...one member's idea of writing an introduction is sound.Bennyboy, I totally appreciate your sagacious concern...By the way, what the hell does OP mean ?

---

Yes @Benny, that is precisely and exactly what I am doing...continually maintaining a clarity about what I am attempting to describe via intentional repetitions...

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote tags

What’s so hard about clicking “reply” and writing beneath the quote? I don’t get it.

I would comment on the rest but it looks like a crunchy word salad to me

Losty, I am so new to this that it is like having to learn and read Chinese without being able to read Chinese. I have no idea what you are talking about...

Losty, what was "so hard" about a Newbie trying to do what you see as so simple is, when the Newbie gets to "beneath the quote", whatever, or, wherever that was supposed to be, the normal figure-ground function of his consciousness cannot see the figure which you describe as "beneath the quote", for, as I now see, is a purely blank white space; so, the Newbie cannot, does not, see what you are talking about...user unfriendliness par excellence ! Negatio.