Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

It’s fun to imagine OP appearing in court and presenting a defense case along these lines. I wonder what double acts of negation Sartre would have indulged in while picking up trash along the highway to keep reminding himself about his radical ontological freedom and how The Man just doesn’t understand.

Now, OP, go back, edit, revise, and resubmit.

  You have totally insightfully recognized a core and cardinal point of theessay, i.e., that the theoretical constructs posited since Spinoza,within Sartre\'s employment thereof, constitute a radical new and indefeasible defense against all jurisprudentially posited ascription of fault.  However, since no extant police or prosecutorial officer, or magistrate, posses either the education or the reflection requisite to following the  ontological reasoning upon which the defense if predicated, it would, at this point, be self-destructive to enunciate, as a defense, what would be totally unintelligible to both the court and the prosecution.Hence my publishing my essay in this and every other possible way for the sake of establishing a continuum of written discussion of what I refer to as jurisprudential illusion... So, that, in future, one might request judicial notice of said publications; or, otherwise somehow submit before magistrates said ontological reasoning regarding the actual upsurge of human action, via whatever means an informed attorney may know to employ to that end...Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quotes