Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Negatio was informed, at the outset, that his fragmented thought process and communicative style expressed things that were untrue, and oversold his miscalculated objection as an ontological argument against a god.

Care to relay that message to him for me, Duane?

Khemikal, no way could you have, in such a short time, once and for all determined that I "expressed things that were untrue".  Everything I say, everything, is grounded in and is expressed through both language and theory that is not mine, it is Spinoza's'; Sartre's'; Hegel's, not mine.  What I am maintaining is accomplished through Spinoza's rich dictum.  No one has, in four hundred years, shown the dictum to be nonsense, untrue, miscalculated...My argument against Deity is, actually, very simple, i.e., Deity exhibits lack of understanding of how I tick, Deity mistakenly thinks law can make me tick, he is dead wrong, because, all determination is negation; determination to act, for a human being does not, cannot, arise on the basis of a present, or, a past situation. Law is from the past; the past is no longer, it is dead, it cannot move me to do anything whatsoever; all of these assertions  are not mine, they are Sartre's; I, DuaneNegatio am simply employing Sartre's stands, Spinoza's stand, to set forward a twentieth century efficient reasoning against Deity...All I am doing is articulating, assembling, employing the powerful thoughts of previous thinkers, in Duane's overly abstruse linguistic usage, however, the ideas underlying that abstruse language are indefeasible, I have only, merely used "determination is negation'' to show Deity to be mistaken, and, therefore, is not Deity. Negatio.  P. S., I'll tell Duane you said hello, he's out partying with all his rowdy friends right now, so, catch you later, Khemikal!x