Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

It would seem characters such as Yahweh can't exist as literally written, because they are not internally consistent. How it could work that a real being contradicts itself, I don't know.

The only way it could exist is by allowing deviation from the text, and by doing so, enough deviation can produce a mundane and very possible being. The remaining question would be how much deviation is "allowed", and whether you can produce a deity within that restriction. I don't think there's a sensible answer to that, as we're already way past blurring the line between reality and fantasy at this point.

Robvalue.  Your concern appears to revolve around my attempting to disprove what appear to be mere literary characters when, no one now knows for sure whether these Biblical literary characters once existed, in fact, on the face of the earth.  The central thing is that for thousands of years now we have worshipped these putative deities as God, and we mistakenly think that the law exercised by Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ is a language efficient to determine our actions.  I am merely saying language of law is not an efficacy efficient to determine men to action, that these gods mistakenly think their laws are efficient to determine men to action, or, to refrain from acting; and, that via showing themselves to be mistaken, these gods show that they are not indeed gods.  My "ontological" basis for proffering my position is the ontological structure of the man the gods are universally believed to have created. It matters not at all that they may or may not be fictions, we have  believed what the fictions have told us, and, the fictions are wrong. Humans have structured their civilizations for thousands of years now based upon an incorrect view of what we are, as originally presented by these gods, and, that has led, leads to our having an unhappy/foibled civilization.  Negatio.

Hmm...

My pro-tips for operating on this forum, OP. First is to accurately use the quotation function. I can see you’re able to edit posts quite easily, and indeed utilise common forum languages and shorthand (OP is an example), so I’m not sure why you’re unable to use this when the BB code is actually very simple and user friendly.

Not doing this is both frustrating for other members who are trying to communicate with you (responding without quoting will not alert them, and if you start cutting and moving text and not adding in additional quotation tags it stymies the flow of your post at best and makes it unreadable at worst) and, to be frank, draws suspicion.

In addition, I’m not here to tell people how to write their posts, but from my long experience moderating and posting on a wide number of forums, people who refer to themselves in the 3rd person, and write in an overly verbose and tangential fashion, are often not genuine in their attempts at discourse. Again, I’m not here to tell you how to write, but the reaction you will (continue) to get from posters is one of frustration and annoyance as people will find it very difficult to decipher what it is you’re trying to say (and that’s not due to a lack of comepetencies on their part, many of our members are very well read in a wide variety of disciplines as you’ll see from perusing previous threads). People want to talk to other members, but if it feels like they’re having a conversation with a poorly programmed chat bot, they’ll soon lose interest.

Those are my pro tips - take them or leave them.

OP can mean original post or original poster. So they’re either referring to your first post or to you specifically.

Yes, thank you.  Why is a box with KevinM1's "I am not a troll." constantly appearing in some sort of sub-ground on my thread, from August 21st ??? Negatio.

---

I can see you’re able to edit posts quite easily, and indeed utilise common forum languages and shorthand (OP is an example), so I’m not sure why you’re unable to use this

You lost me at "this", what this ?  Negatio.