Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

I understand your perspective, and if you're right then as I said I'll accept ragging for all time afterwards, and learn a valuable lesson from it, but I just see too much that makes me think otherwise;

You will garner no ragging from me. And I doubt anyone else.

Firstly I have experience with people who are complete technophobes... my mum and others.... so that mindset does exist in some people; where every time they use the computer, I have to explain the same things over and over again... simple things like how to search or close a page. It simply isn't retained... or if it is it's only in procedural form such that if that procedure goes wrong, they're completely lost about what do next. And since they don't use the computer enough, they never learn any the underlying principles of what they're doing, so never learn rules of thumb to rely on in the future, and are thus essentially stuck with whatever procedures are provided for them. This situation feels a lot like that to me.

I hate myself for it, but the fallacy of sunk cost is a real thing. Took me quite some time to admit it.

Secondly, I feel like progress has has been made, albeit slowly. And as I said, I think my mum would have taken just as long to get to the same level, if not longer.

Mine died ten years ago. But I know exactly what her response would be to negatio's posts.

Thirdly, his difficulty with context reminds me of me. If I'm reading a book and it names and defines x on one page, then proceeds to continue talking about that thing for several pages afterwards but only referring back to it with 'it' or 'that' or 'this' etc, rather than the name, then I start to get lost and not sure what it's talking about anymore, so I look forward to the next time it uses the full name, just to make sure I'm figuratively speaking, on the same page. I find it a big problem with books heavy on description, because the longer it goes on, the more I'm likely to forget or lose track of what it's supposed to be describing.

And there is a problem. Nobody else experiences the tragic hurdles that he claims. Nobody. Just him and him alone. Does not that give you pause? In the case of my own long dead mother, I had only to explain anything once. Then she had an "Aha" moment and it was never raised again. And I raised up thread my ancient friend. And the simple fact is that it is always possible to dumb things down so that anyone can understand them right up until one reaches the nether depths of dumb.

In my own case, that difficulty with context... which is a big thing for me... is potentially ascribable to Asperger's Syndrome. That is, someone I've known most of my life, who's well placed to make such a judgement, since she has a son who is Aspergers, is absolutely convinced that I am also, just 'high functioning'. And I do indeed have a lot in common with her son, and several other 'Aspies' I know. Negatio took it offensively when I suggested he may also be Aspergers, but it's nothing about intelligence, just different ways of thinking and processing the world. He says he overthinks things... like Texas Holdem... so do I; overthink is my middle name. But whether he is or not, or whether I am or not, nonetheless I understand that problem with context in his case because I share it.

Think about that. Do any of those double down? Or do they not? Do any of those strive to be better? Or do they not?

To me it is very simple. Why is our protagonist actually here? The options are very limited.

A. He actually thinks he has a killer onto-bonko argument against god. Who cares? We are mostly godless heathens anyway. And certainly all of the participants in this thread are.
B. He wants to test the logic of his argument against fellow atheists. I dismiss this since he clearly has no interest in so doing.
C. Troll. Sorta looks possible but the jury is out.
D. Loon. The eight ball has things to say there.
E. Something the hell else.

OP is singularly uninterested in fixing up the OP but spends all available time being trenchant. OP has threatened to re-write the OP several times but refuses to do so. I and others have expended a lot of time and effort both in thread and via PM to no avail. Where does one draw the line on the sunk cost? Never?

I will freely admit that I was initially harsh. Then I relented and provided a swathe of information as did many others. All of us had it hurled right back at us in continuous fits of pique. Let us be clear. This was not a oneoff tantrum. It is still happening.

Way back up thread when anyone granted some leeway, the question was asked about platforms. What platform are you using. We all thought this might offer an insight into whether or not it was a technical issue. Well that was an exercise in extracting blood from a stone. Crank #1 dodged like a pro.

Tell you what. Go read the thread from the start. Then venture an opinion.