Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

[quote = "Abaddon_ire"

Am in middle of sorting out electrical problem in cabin;

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

do not have any light in computer room; I just about have it licked.

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.

You are mistaken about the OP being incoherent. 

Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

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

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

---

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 is seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you of this 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.

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

---

No, you bare engaged in the careful construction of a death trap

No it is still a death trap of your own incompetent manufacture.
Except that everybody else agrees. Why is that?

Except that everyone here knows you are lying. Why is that?

---

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 is seems, to you, unintelligible/incoherent, etc., is, precisely that you are not in possession, at this time, foundation/background in the existentialist language wherein the OP, and, the rewrite, are cast.  I tried to inform you of this 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.

Despite all of the patient explanations, you persist in comprehensively cocking up quoted text. 

And somehow, you still think that your ontocobblers crap holds any water.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Notice
Fixed quote

And you still comprhensively cock up  the quote function despite all effort.