Ontological Disproof of God

[The Grand Nudger]

No, consensus is the means scientists agree, or disagree, among themselves, in their process of progressing in

science. (See: Jurgen Habermas, "Knowledge and Human Interest"). It has nothing to do with popularity!

Precisely what "this" is that?!

Oh, I possess a goddamn solid argument; said argument is staring you directly in the face, however, you cannot

see it. Until you fill me in on the exact meaning of your "this", I cannot clearly fathom what you are trying to tell

me here, although, via your "never" it appears that you possess an ability to predict the future. Shit, if I were

you I would employ a capacity for future prediction at the Kentucky Derby!

Unfortunately, I'm much more familiar with internet nutballs than I am with horses...though one could wonder why I spent so much time with the former to the exclusion of the latter..given that obvious economic incentive.  I can only say, in my defense, that I really hate horses.

(but I do like hats, mint juleps, and losing money!)

While  you are confident argument is certainly to be found, with you predictive capacity, you should be able to 

describe, for everyone, said presently-absent solid argument; instead of constantly telling me, and telling me,

and telling me, that said argument certainly can be found. So, where is said absent solid argument now?

Sounds to me that you may know what and where the missing argument is.  Please stop continuously telling

about your ghost argument; and, write it out yourself, and, if you cannot, or, will not; mine is the only such

argument on the table, and, if you cannot find the absent argument you are so sure has some type of existence

or other; you are, thereby, thrown onto the possibility of voting mine to be prima facie viable, or not. Negatio. 

It's pretty simple.  If you want to maintain that a god is ontologically inauthentic...and specifically that it is so because it did not know something that our creator ought to know..pick something that 

A.  Is true
and
B.  God didn't know.

Your objection, that the language of law is completely ineffective as regards human determination is..to borrow your own preferred terms, false, prima facie...and more importantly, if it were true, it wouldn't matter, because the god in question is actually supposed to have known just that and makes explicit comment to that end.

Perhaps..instead, you should pick something that is true, and that god didn't know even though, as our creator, it should have?  Like the simplest facts of human origin.  Or, if you wanted to stick with the law fetish, perhaps the contents of specific prohibitions, like a prohibition in envy or lascivious thought.  Surely, our creator would have known that we were incapable of controlling these impulses.  In fairness, perhaps it was, but this, by reference to it's statements of desert, challenges other ontological claims relevant to that god.  Specifically it's omnipotence - could it not have created a creature at least capable of controlling those thoughts (and it did, didn't it, it just didn't do so with us. Plants don't envy.)?  Or, is it not just enough to accept that we are only morally culpable for those things within our control (or accept responsibility for it's own failed actions by reference to it's own metrics)?  Or, is it not merciful enough to forgo any debt on the basis of our own unchosen construction - it's alleged design?  

Or, one could go even more abstract, and question the omniscience of a creator who makes prohibitions without any obvious statements or understanding as to the grounds of those same prohibitions?

All of these would be much more competent arguments against the ontological claims and status of dumb christer god than the mistaken notions that god attempts to rule over us by law (it doesn't), that the language of law is ineffectual (it isn't), and that god didn't know how poorly we'd perform relative to this language (it did).

Now...obviously, the weakness of your own argument is in no way a defense of an alleged gods many fuckups.... or of our system of laws ticks (more accurately the public perception of our system of law) - and those conversations can both be had on solid ground and roughly conform to the conclusion that you reached..even if the reasons for that conclusion, in your formulation..were inaccurate and wholly inadequate, and even though whatever kernel of truth might lie at the heart of your contention has been vastly oversold in the op.

In short, the density of your language was not sufficient for the task of masking the intellectual deficiencies the position contained - even though that is clearly the purpose of it's employment. It is not for a lack of understanding that this argument has been discarded as garbage, precisely the opposite. Neither you nor those you choose to cite were so brilliant that a common person, in common language, is incapable of understanding the contentions made and pointing out where and why they are in error.

Capisce?