RE: Ontological Disproof of God
September 5, 2018 at 9:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2018 at 10:12 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(September 5, 2018 at 9:55 pm)negatio Wrote: Yea, sure, I am going to stand before everyone on earth and say "God's awfully dumb for a God." Wow, that would be so profound that I would, without a doubt, win a Nobel prize, gee, why didn't I think of that. No, Khemikcal, one's language at the philosophical level must be set forward consistently with the entire history of intelligible philosophical thought for thousands of years back.b-mine
Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig. Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards and say that. You could say it in spanish, you could say it in swahili, you could say it in 50 thousand words. 6 will do, in any language, because it's what you intend to prove. That a god didn't know something that god ought to know. I don't think that you're wrong, but I know that you've given an exceedingly poor reason for that conclusion.
Quote:I said language of law is without compelling effect. What compelling effect has my language had on the forum, on you just now, not much ! It is ideation, truthful ideation, that is compelling among men, and, language is ideation that can be compelling, but not determinative of human conduct, ever, because determination is negation, and, all given language is a given, not an absence, when, in fact we humans are determined to act by absences, not be stuff which is already here with us....I am exhausted and will not be able to write accurately...great, beautiful interchange Khemikal, I call it dialogical dialectic, but those words are not mine, they come out of thousands of years of dialogical dialectic among persons. Goodnight, Negatio.People have been wrong about thousands of things for thousands of years, and people have been mangling their own arguments for thousands of years in a vain attempt to convince others that they aren't pigs with lipstick on.
It would be possible to improve your argument while maintaining it's overall thrust, simultaneously communicating that argument in a clear and breif manner...you realize?
Your perpetual reassertion is the only thing standing in the way of that. Are you free to do otherwise? If you could demonstrate that you were it would add alot of credibility to your contentions. 123GO!
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
