Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

This seems to have the potential to be something interesting.
However, I read  the first line "The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode of negation whereby a person originates an intentional act." and I could not make any sense of it. Quick scan of the subsequent lines showed more of the same.
Please make a summary of this argument in a few lines of normal english.

 Where do you get off expecting to fully and immediately attain a full and in depth understanding of the very first line of a philosophical treatise.?!  In this particular first line, the author is simply stating what he intends to subsequently discuss and, subsequently, what he intends to make a full explanation of.  The writer has already given you a clue to the intension of the first sentence when, he gave you the cardinal central precept upon which the entire treatise is predicated, i.e., that "determination is negation", a notion originated by a seventeenth century person named Spinoza. So, the first sentence is simply stating that the writer intends to subsequently consider, within the treatise, a person creating an intentional act as a personal determination to act, which act somehow arises in a negative fashion, indicated by the phrase " mode of negation".  Of course you are not going to comprehend the phrase, it is the very first time you have encountered someone speaking of "negation", what a strange and alien appearing juxtaposition of terms.  Could it be that you have just encountered a situation wherein a writer is telling you he intends to provide the reader with certain considerations regarding the negative way in which human choice or determination to act upsurges !  You need to read-on. So, oh, wow, you continue to encounter new and strange language articulated  in what appears at first glance to be pure nonsense, yes, indeed, it must be nonsensical bullshit, because the reader has not taken the time to perhaps consult whatever reference sources might assist him in at least learning the meaning of each word contained in the sentence.  Wow, you just encountered some perhaps really heavy shit, which you are too torpid to pursue word by word, digging-in for the possibility of having a transcendent and transformational experience, wherein the author appears to be proffering you the possibility of attaining to some far out self-understanding of the way human beings actually create, originate, upsurge, make, their actions.  Oh, yea, why isn\t this written in just  a few lines of normal English...quick perusal exhibits more apparent nonsense...the author is clearly stoned out of his mind...he couldn't possibly be attempting to provide the reader with a reflective  understanding of the way human consciousness originates action !  Yes, this clearly must be a total waste of time, however, it seems to have the potential to be something interesting...yes, but you have to work your ass off to obtain, for yourself, no one else can do it for you, that interesting something !  The author is launching into explanation of the means whereby he claims he will give the reader a disproof of Deity, yes, it ought to be written in few lines of normal English...yes, it is a normal every day occurrence that disproof of Deity is set forth in the simplest possible, plain, ordinary, English ! ?  Thank you.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
edited to fix quote

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

Given that demonstrable laziness, why, exactly, should anyone here bother to wade through your intentionally obfuscated walls of text?

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote