Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

I'm sorry, leaving this thread it's making my head hurt worse than my 14 year old does.

I know you gave it a decent try negatio but perhaps if you spent sometime looking at how other posts go, it might help you to familiarize yourself with things here.

Good luck though.

Joods,  I have repeatedly read what you said here, and, at first I thought that my lack knowledge of how to quote and reply to members, and the resultant horrible appearance of this thread, gives you a headache worse than dealing with your teenager does, which prompted me to do more study regarding operating within this forum; however, now, it has dawned on me that what is giving you a headache is the apparently radically outrageous things I am stating here, regarding law.
I do not understand if by suggesting I look at other threads in the forum I may learn to refrain from saying certain things, or, might learn more about properly responding to and properly quoting other members ?  Duane

---

That has some truth to it, but it's not an absolute truth, which is why you need to reformulate your argument.  Your argument, as stated, depends on it being absolute.  A general rule that holds.

It simply doesn't.  

Law is at least efficient enough to keep me from doing something I want to do, and I'm just discussing human law, here.

The contention is that law, in the general sense, demonstrates incompetence on the part of a god...but..again in the general...it doesn't.  It may in reference to some specific law.  Ultimately I'd agree with you, that god is awfully dumb for a god and some of that can be seen in gods laws.  I'm suggesting that your particular line of reasoning doesn't demonstrate that.  Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it......

Me man, me find law sometimes determinitive.  You wrong.  Feel me?

(That one was straight up for you, Emjay, lol)

Are you calling me dumb? Oh right, I already did

I'm gradually getting there, so I probably will comment on it at some point. But till then I'll happily take the Khemikal Digest

Mostly, because it's just not sound, no matter how many times you reassert it our who's authority you cite.

-or how many words you use to communicate it...... 
Precisely what is unsound about what I am maintaining; just to assert that it is not sound is not enough, you ought to explain your assertion.  Thank You. Negatio.

Moderator Notice
Removed extra quotes

[emjay]

@negatio. Since you've asked above... The = (equals sign) in an opening tag is used for supplying (optional) parameters of the tag in question, that control/affect its behaviour, in this case, for the quote tag, there are three possible parameters; quote=, pid=, and dateline=, and they determine what will be shown above the quoted text:

If you leave them blank (since they are optional) you'll get a quote box that only says 'Quote:' eg:


The above quote displayed:

Notice it only says 'Quote:' at the top, not 'Author Wrote:', since no author parameter was supplied, nor does it say on the right hand side any date information such as an actual date or 'x mins/hours ago', since no date parameter was supplied. So this, without parameters, is basically the use of the quote tag pared to the bone.

When you press Reply on the other hand, all of those parameters are automatically filled in for you and most of the time you should not have to mess with them, for instance (just showing one of my previous posts for the sake of this demonstration):


The above quote displayed:

Note that all three parameters were automatically supplied when the Reply button was pressed, and in the output it says 'emjay Wrote:' above the text on the left, using the supplied author parameter, and the datetime information above the text on the right, using the supplied 'dateline' parameter.

So that's the difference in syntax and appearance between a quote tag supplied with no parameters... as you might if you want to construct a quote from scratch, rather than replying to a specific post on the site... and one with parameters, as for instance supplied automatically when you press the Reply button. As a user you shouldn't ever realistically need to manually supply the latter two parameters - pid and dateline - because they are specific to replying to a particular post on the site, so they should always be supplied automatically when you press the Reply button to do that. But the first one, quote='author', you might do manually from time to time, for instance to quote some famous author.

Hope this is helpful.

Wow, thanks a million emjay, you really know your stuff.  I am not so inept at responding to posts that my whole thread looks horrid, and it is giving people headaches to spend time here !  I just now recently figured out how and where to write in the space I am typing in right now, but, I am not even sure if it is proper to type now, without entering some special code...

You're welcome Well, if you don't know, you don't know, but you're getting there so it's all good Anyway, you shouldn't have to write any special code anywhere, just whatever you want to write... as long as it's after the quote, but you seem to be getting the hang of that now.

I will say one thing though, which may unfortunately add a bit of confusion; you seem to be multiquoting... ie you've replied to my post but there is another one quoted before it... which I've now removed from my reply to you, which is making your posts particularly massive, dragging around stuff that you're not directly replying to. To fix that, if you're using the desktop site (ie on a computer), scroll down to the bottom of the screen and look at the box called "Quick Reply"; if at the bottom of that text box it says "You have selected one or more posts to quote. Quote these posts now or deselect them" then that means that you still have quotes selected with the Multiquote button - which allows you to select any number of posts to quote at once. You may have used the Multiquote button by accident instead of the Reply button, since it is next to the Reply button and perhaps deceptively entitled "Quote" (with a little green plus sign... which changes to a little red minus sign if you press the button, indicating that it has now added that post to the list of posts to quote at once). So my guess is that you've, perfectly understandably, done that at some point so it still has some posts in memory that haven't been cleared, and therefore putting them/it at the beginning of all your subsequent posts. That happened to me once, and I had to figure out how to solve it, but thankfully it's simple; all you have to do is click the italicized 'deselect them' link shown above, as it appears in the Quick Reply box. After that that message should disappear, indicating that your multiquote list is now clear.

[The Grand Nudger]

Precisely what is unsound about what I am maintaining; just to assert that it is not sound is not enough, you ought to explain your assertion.  Thank You. Negatio.

The assertion that law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action.

I don't have to be a professional philosopher or a neurobiologist to call massive bullshit on that one.

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 

......The Law™

[emjay]

Anyway negatio, I'm gradually working my way through your OP but my first concern is that it looks like your theory is dependent on accepting a certain theory of consciousness, which looks like a dualist theory to me. Is that correct? I'm a hard determinist, so where the brain is concerned, to me consciousness at all times reflects brain states which are physical. Whether those brain states are forward looking (ie imagination or expectations) or backward looking (memories), they are still always physically encoded in the neural networks of the brain. So based on the small amount you've written about this 'ex nihilo' theory in your OP... ie granting that a full understanding would only come from reading Spinoza or Sartre... it looks most likely to me that we're going to fundamentally disagree on the nature of consciousness. I may have misunderstood, but that's all I think I can really gather at the moment, without reading Spinoza and Sartre. But basically if that's the case, that's not really a discussion I'm interested in having, because ultimately this whole site is a never ending argument between determinists and non-determinists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Determinist or non determinist..I don't know that it matters in context.  Regardless of which side of that camp a person falls on, the specific objection of incompetence seems misinformed on it's face..and doubly so with respect to apologia.

[Joods]

Negatio,
Clearly you misunderstood me. You had it, then you assumed to know what was making my head hurt. And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't your interpretation of the law that was making my head hurt. It was indeed, your newbie use of the quoting system here. Please don't read any more into it than that.

[negatio]

Precisely what is unsound about what I am maintaining; just to assert that it is not sound is not enough, you ought to explain your assertion.  Thank You. Negatio.

The assertion that law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action.

I don't have to be a professional philosopher or a neurobiologist to call massive bullshit on that one.

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 

......The Law™

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 
Because a magistrate could fine you, confiscate your real estate; jail you.  However the judge can only be acting on the basis of his personal project either to do so , or not; and even though the judge thinks he is determining to punish you on the basis of law, he is mistaken, because mere language of law does not, cannot, affect anyone  to do anything.  It is my responsibility to demonstrate to our extant legal system, that the doctors of jurisprudence who operate the system, are suffering the illusion that their language of law is determining them to act against persons, when, in fact, the language of law is not a determinative agent, and, it is and only, and can only be that these doctors of jurisprudence are acting, in each case, purely on the basis of their own personal project to prosecute, or convict, or punish.  The DA has the option to charge you with a crime, or not.  It is not the law written against growing weed that moves the DA to either alternative, it is his own personal consciousness, thus, we do not have a system of law, but, rather, a hierarchical caste system wherein certain persons get to pursue personal projects for the sake of punishing others, and for the sake of bringing funds into the "justice'' system. I want to expose their jurisprudential illusion.

---

Negatio,
Clearly you misunderstood me. You had it, then you assumed to know what was making my head hurt. And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't your interpretation of the law that was making my head hurt. It was indeed, your newbie use of the quoting system here. Please don't read any more into it than that.

Joods, If you get a chance, please view page twenty of my thread because I am just now getting a bit more of the hang of it, and the pages are starting to look somewhat less nuts !  Thanks, Duane

---

Anyway negatio, I'm gradually working my way through your OP but my first concern is that it looks like your theory is dependent on accepting a certain theory of consciousness, which looks like a dualist theory to me. Is that correct? I'm a hard determinist, so where the brain is concerned, to me consciousness at all times reflects brain states which are physical. Whether those brain states are forward looking (ie imagination or expectations) or backward looking (memories), they are still always physically encoded in the neural networks of the brain. So based on the small amount you've written about this 'ex nihilo' theory in your OP... ie granting that a full understanding would only come from reading Spinoza or Sartre... it looks most likely to me that we're going to fundamentally disagree on the nature of consciousness. I may have misunderstood, but that's all I think I can really gather at the moment, without reading Spinoza and Sartre. But basically if that's the case, that's not really a discussion I'm interested in having, because ultimately this whole site is a never ending argument between determinists and non-determinists.

emjay    Please check out page 19 and post #181 on my thread, where I posted the rewritten  Part I of my essay, which is written much much clearer.  No, you do not have to bother to fully read Spinoza and Sartre, that would be much too much ! Thank You.  Duane

Moderator Notice
Deleted a lot of accidental extra quotes

[negatio]

---

The assertion that law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action.

I don't have to be a professional philosopher or a neurobiologist to call massive bullshit on that one.

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 

......The Law™

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 
Because a magistrate could fine you, confiscate your real estate; jail you.  However the judge can only be acting on the basis of his personal project either to do so , or not; and even though the judge thinks he is determining to punish you on the basis of law, he is mistaken, because mere language of law does not, cannot, affect anyone  to do anything.  It is my responsibility to demonstrate to our extant legal system, that the doctors of jurisprudence who operate the system, are suffering the illusion that their language of law is determining them to act against persons, when, in fact, the language of law is not a determinative agent, and, it is and only, and can only be that these doctors of jurisprudence are acting, in each case, purely on the basis of their own personal project to prosecute, or convict, or punish.  The DA has the option to charge you with a crime, or not.  It is not the law written against growing weed that moves the DA to either alternative, it is his own personal consciousness, thus, we do not have a system of law, but, rather, a hierarchical caste system wherein certain persons get to pursue personal projects for the sake of punishing others, and for the sake of bringing funds into the "justice'' system. I want to expose their jurisprudential illusion.

---

---

Negatio,
Clearly you misunderstood me. You had it, then you assumed to know what was making my head hurt. And that's where you're wrong. It wasn't your interpretation of the law that was making my head hurt. It was indeed, your newbie use of the quoting system here. Please don't read any more into it than that.

Joods, If you get a chance, please view page twenty of my thread because I am just now getting a bit more of the hang of it, and the pages are starting to look somewhat less nuts !  Thanks, Duane

---

---

Anyway negatio, I'm gradually working my way through your OP but my first concern is that it looks like your theory is dependent on accepting a certain theory of consciousness, which looks like a dualist theory to me. Is that correct? I'm a hard determinist, so where the brain is concerned, to me consciousness at all times reflects brain states which are physical. Whether those brain states are forward looking (ie imagination or expectations) or backward looking (memories), they are still always physically encoded in the neural networks of the brain. So based on the small amount you've written about this 'ex nihilo' theory in your OP... ie granting that a full understanding would only come from reading Spinoza or Sartre... it looks most likely to me that we're going to fundamentally disagree on the nature of consciousness. I may have misunderstood, but that's all I think I can really gather at the moment, without reading Spinoza and Sartre. But basically if that's the case, that's not really a discussion I'm interested in having, because ultimately this whole site is a never ending argument between determinists and non-determinists.

emjay    Please check out page 19 and post #181 on my thread, where I posted the rewritten  Part I of my essay, which is written much much clearer.  No, you do not have to bother to fully read Spinoza and Sartre, that would be much too much ! Thank You.  Duane

In setting forth my position I concentrate on the way we humans progress toward the future and transcend our past, i.e., "double nihilation", and, even though processes transpire at the cellular level, we humans still enact projects toward attaining our future, and, thereby, transcend and make the present our past.  Perhaps determinist cerebral cellular processes mediate the free projection of consciousness toward the future.  It is indifferent what we call our sapientality, an "autopoietic self-referential system", or, "consciousness", we still  perform actions within the sociosphere, whatever the underlying neural/chemical processes are which mediate our intentionality at the cellular level.  Nonetheless, we agree that we make choices and do intentional actions, i.e., if we so agree, we can proceed  irregardless of what transpires at the cellular level.  Anyway, please read my latest script, it concerns free human action, however that action may ultimately biologically originate at the microscopic level.

Moderator Notice
Removed accidental extra quote

[emjay]

@negatio. I'll look into and think about what you said properly another day - it's late for me - but since it looks like it's got lost in the maelstrom, if you don't want all your posts going forward to be constantly requoting one of your old replies, as it appears to be doing at the moment, just follow this quick step: if you're on a computer, scroll down to the bottom of the page to the box entitled 'Quick Reply'. At the bottom of that text box, it will probably be showing the text "You have selected one or more posts to quote. Quote these posts now or deselect them". If you then click the mouse where it says 'deselect them', that message should disappear and next time you post something it won't quote that earlier reply. It would be great if you could do this as it's really starting to get annoying, and for you too I'd imagine, since it means you're constantly dragging around a post you posted before and it's making your posts much larger than they should be.

[Abaddon_ire]

<snip for brevity>

It hard to know where to start.

Sure we made progress , but you seem determined to roll that back. Disappointing.

Quite simply, you desire to present your ideas. I am willing to assist you despite the simple fact that I think that your ideas are useless.

You are at liberty to tell me to go fuck myself, but assistance freely offered and rejected is not some boomerang. It is not coming back.

Now, you can chose to pursue your passive aggressive stance if you wish. Or for the edification of others, you can choose to discuss this in thread, Or you can take it to a PM with me or anyone else.

The choice is yours.

Be warned. My patience is finite. And you are now testing those limits.

At this point, I have little hope.