RE: Ontological Disproof of God
September 7, 2018 at 12:53 am
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2018 at 2:13 am by negatio.)
(September 6, 2018 at 11:39 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(September 6, 2018 at 11:37 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: 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?
(September 6, 2018 at 11:38 pm)negatio Wrote: 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
(September 6, 2018 at 11:39 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:And you still comprhensively cock up the quote function despite all effort.
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
I am engaged in Replying. And, it seems you are continually calling Reply "Quoting"; so, one cannot really tell what on earth you are actually attempting to refer to. I thought Quoting was the earlier disaster when I was using the Quote tab, and inadvertently generating multi-quoting. Do you guys mean Reply when you say Quoting ? I think I am trying to learn how to properly Post Reply, not Quote!? So when you use two terms as synonyms, and, there is really a difference between the two, you are unintentionally both confusing, and, systematically misleading me! Negatio.
