Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Khemikal, no way could you have, in such a short time, once and for all determined that I "expressed things that were untrue".  

OFC I could have, and did.  It doesn't really matter who had the original thought.  You're here as an advocate for it and in that capacity it doesn't really make sense to hide under their skirt.  Your insistence that laws are wholly incapable of compelling human determination is false, and trivially so.  There are some things that some people avoid for no reason other than prohibition by law.  There's a good convo to be had on the margins, of when and what sorts of things those may be, or whether any given law is a good law on those grounds....but you'd have to engage.  

Additionally, whatever the dumb christer god didn't know about us (and the list is long) our spotty ability to conform to law wasn't one of those things.  It took the dim and inaccurate view that you, ironically, espouse..claiming that none of us could be righteous.

Can you see why this makes the argument you offered in the OP a failure on every count?  I could add another wrinkle.  The conclusion doesn't actually follow.  I tell my son not to do things I know he'll do all the time.  Do you think that I or anyone else does this out of ignorance of the nature of our charges?

One cannot go about using the thoughts of others without acknowledgement that the thought is theirs, not yours, otherwise it is what is called plagiarism; I am not hiding under someone's skirt; I am using a tool that another holds the patent on, I cannot claim the tool to be mine, that is the law, but, the law per se did not make or move me to obey what it proscribes; to obey law is, for the most part simply doing nothing...and, if I am just generally doing nothing, it cannot readily be said that I am, in doing nothing, obeying a particular law...when people obey prohibitive law, they, once again, are really, actually, just doing nothing, the written law has no capacity to make a person do nothing, it is, like I told you before, the policemen with clubs and guns; the jails; the horror of going to court, the fines, the possible punishments, which are all why people "obey law", when, in fact they are simply avoiding all of the instruments of punishment, and, it is an illusion that they are obeying the language of law, that language cannot, by itself, accomplish acts … only men with clubs....
In the case with your son, you know that he will do what you prohibit, and, his life is not at stake for his so called disobedience...in the real hardball world of law, one's very life can be at risk for not obeying a law, so, then, when one is  at jeopardy of one's very life, that it becomes supra important to be absolutely truthful, i.e., in actual fact in the real world, all determination is negation, when the judge wants to take you life away in the name of a given law written on the books, while human action does not arise on the basis of given, factual states of affairs, it becomes seriously necessary to point the real facts of the origin of human conduct out to the judge, he is about to take your life, and, he thinks it is because of something someone has written in a book of law, and, he is fucking mistaken, big time, and your life is going down the tubes because everyone thinks books of law determine beings to act or not act, when, in fact, according to twentieth century thought, action upsurges totally otherwise....Negatio
I've never said anything about righteousness...you are saying some ''this'' makes my argument wrong, a damn powerful this !...no, you are doing it out of ignorance of the inefficacy of the language of law, not out of ignorance of your son's nature.  In the OPxI am always saying the language of law, language of law....it is not language of law which is an efficacy among men, nonetheless, it is by that language that the judge is going to take your life, he does not know he is mistaken about the putative efficacy of law either....