Ontological Disproof of God

[Angrboda]

Oh, and as to your use of language, there must exist bridging language which is not dependent on things such as use of ontological jargon or Sartrean neologisms, or else people would not be able to learn these concepts in the first place.  So it would seem that your claim that you either cannot use simpler language, or that you would be sacrificing rigor by doing so, seems little more than an affectation.

My response to Iwnkyaaimi explained why, in philosophy, when writing my very best attempt to communicate a philosophical position to the world, one is under enormous necessities requisite to positing an indefeasible philosophical position. It radically insults me when you assert I am using  ontological "jargon" ! I am using the language of existential phenomenological ontology and using the theoretical weaponry attendant upon that same existential ontological language.  When I am asserting ontological unintelligibility to be exhibited by the language and theoretical constructs of American law, I, so to speak, throw myself into a situation alike playing the American game of hardball baseball, i.e., I am absolutely without excuse for not possessing the consummate skill and presence of mind to play; here, I am playing hardball upon the theoretical level regarding the very theoretical constructs whereupon Americans have founded their very civilization. I am not employing what J. so ungraciously characterizes as "jargon", it is  only ''jargon'' to someone unable to nobly show an a priori respect for something she has not, perhaps cannot, yet, fully give a fair reading to... I am employing the established and as yet undefeated language and theoretical constructions of Sartreian ontological description of how a human act originates.  In order to describe Sartre's understanding of the originative mode of a human act, at the level of hardball I knew I was engaged in, in this hardball world, before I posted the OP here, when I was purely casting my writing out into the world (how else can  one submit one's best thinking to the world other than just casting it forth ?!), I, of course, used the language the theoretical constructions  I employ were originally cast in, Sartreian existentialist thought is an established language, (thought is language/language is thought, Wittgenstein) extant across the entire world, studied at universities worldwide. The OP writing is written for Doctors of Jurisprudence, who oft times have degrees in philosophy, and, of course to PhD Philosophy scholars, who, viably, are expected to possess the theoretical instrumentation requisite to digesting the OP; and, most certainly, it is written to absolutely anyone toughminded enough to gain an ultimate comprehension of what the OP is saying. I was simply using what I saw to be an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which appeared to be a viable platform upon which to perch my theory, for the theory did indeed, posit an ontological disproof of Deity.  The thinker who posted the OP absolutely could not achieve enunciation of the OP in simple language, he had been trying for years, that did not matter, he, nonetheless, wanted to cast the treatise out into the world; not knowing anything whatsoever about persons engaged within the Forum. (Subsequently, I rewrote the totality of Part I in simpler terms, because the dialectic I engaged in with members  was so radically stimulating, that I was finally able to put the treatise in a much more straightforward and, simpler manner).
I am not and do not need to affectuate an inauthentic personality, which personality is pretending to any damn thing; I am real; and when I say I cannot cast the OP otherwise, even though I just did, I much prefer the OP,  because I am under the stark necessity to own indefeasibility in my position, and, the OP is written and structured for theoretical indefeasibility. I am an existentialist, authenticity is of utmost significance to be, I am not ignobly pretending to be something other!, which is precisely what has been demanded of me for ten days now; everyone wants me to live up to their particular expectation of what I should, in their estimation, rather be !  This is an absolutely wonderful dialectical state of affairs which is transpiring now between me and the members, it is damn good medicine for me; however, the OP stands, nonetheless, it will be recast, during the course of a hopefully ongoing dialectic between myself and very stimulating members.  (Could someone please shoot me BB code for putting a pic in the upper left hand corned of my thread; I have a pic of the actual ivory tower I do a lot of writing are reading in, while the birds sing and the deer leap).
Sartreian neologisms enunciate the most absolutely beautiful and the most profound, most absolutely radical thinking about how human action originates, in the entire history of the world.  I cannot, will not, dis-avail myself  of  the most absolutely profound and powerful intellectual instrumentation ever enunciated in the history of  human thought !  To be able to both understand and to employ the theoretical ideation enunciated by the neologisms, gives me the bullet-proof armor requisite to participate in hardball theoretical destruction of that which no one, thus far, has even thought to question, much less  actually questioned ,i.e., American law, in a theoretical overthrow of the ontological unintelligibility attendant upon the primemost theoretical construct of the American religion, which essential theoretical construct is "law",and, the fundamental presupposition mistakenly entertained by said law, i.e., that language of law is determinative of human conduct. Thank You. Negatio.

These are all nothing but excuses for your incompetence. You can't defend your OP in either jargon or simple language. Expressing things in jargon doesn't make your position less defeasable, except insofar as it makes it incomprehensible, it just presents a barrier to understanding. If you'll read real philosophers, they don't talk or write like this. Even Sartre only used his neologisms after patient introduction of their meaning and plenty of examples. So you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

And for what it's worth, you seem not to know the meaning of the word jargon.

Definition of jargon
1 : the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group

Here's another definition that I find useful here.

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

~ Wikipedia