Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Nope. OP is incoherent. Every further attempt is incoherent.

Precisely the same way in which I see computer code prima facie unintelligible, when, what I am seeing is not, in fact, unintelligible, when you look at the particular language I use, which language is straight out of the language of existential phenomenological phenomenology, origination circa 1943, said language appears, to you, to be an indubitable unintelligibility, when, in fact, said language is not, per se, unintelligible.  And, the reason my text seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, of foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you likewise once before, and, you rejected my explanation, and, returned to presenting me with nothing more than pure assertion asserting my language to be incomprehensible.  The language being employed within both the OP, and, the rewrite, is not, not, my language;- the language is Spinoza's and Sartre's, I am merely employing an established existential phenomenological language to enunciate a new means whereby a theoretical destruction of a current notion of Deity is possible, and, you are not instrumented sufficiently to see the meaning of what you are looking at, precisely alike me, with computer code.  Negatio.

Moderator Notice
This is becoming tiresome