Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

A re-write of Part I of the OP was sent to you via post from page 19 #184 of this thread, which was a good while ago, so, your above is a mischaracterization...I did rewrite the Deity disproof portion; no more is requisite, until consensus can be reached among members whether or not Part I constitutes a prima facie viable disproof.  I have proferred the possibility of putting the viability of the paper to a consensus vote, the same way science proceeds, however, I do not think there if enough  interest for consensus, either way, to happen.  If the disproof is deemed, by members, to have failed to rise to mere prima facie status, then, I'm outa here, away from all the psychological torture....Negatio.

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent. You have insisted ever since that such incoherency is simply "your style". One is thus provoked to wonder why it is that you double down on such a presentation. It can't be that you want to present your ideas. If you did want to communicate your ideas, you would at least make some attempt at a modicum of clarity, but no. Honking great walls of abstruse text are the order of the day.

Quite obviously, you have absolutely no interest in being understood by anyone, this is all an exercise in navel gazing onanism to you. Nobody here is forcing you to CHANGE your message, we are all simply telling you how to effectively communicate said message. You appear not to care whether your message is communicated to anyone. One must thus wonder thus what the hell are you here for.

An ontological disproof of god? Nope.

[quote = "Abaddon_ire"
[/quote]
Am in middle of sorting out electrical problem in cabin; do not have any light in computer room; I just about have it licked.  You are mistaken about the OP being incoherent.  The problem here is precisely analogous to the problem I have comprehending computer code absent any background whatsoever in computer theory...I will respond, but it has got to be a little later...Negatio