Ontological Disproof of God

[bennyboy]

4.  Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
    Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all  the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of non-existants, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever.  For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).

I suspect our boy here has learned that in high school, if you put enough big words into enough sentences, your English teacher will just give you an A+ not to have to try to understand you.  But any good argument should have as its goal maximal linguistic simplicity, not maximal annoyance.  I did take the time to read this point, and it at least seems linguistically sound. (In the OP's defense, anyone willing to voluntarily read Sartre probably considers this kind of language the norm-- ewwww)

That being said, I haven't read it all, because language this dense requires a level of investment that I'm not willing to make on somebody's first post.  I have my own internal consciousnesses to ponder on the basis that they are a predicate for determinative action, and the OP's verbiage is too grandiose to merit anything but defenestration!

(see, I can do it too, and I admit it's kind of fun)

[Angrboda]

I haven't read Spinoza, but if he's saying what I think he's saying, I can connect the two from Sartre's perspective, but I highly doubt Spinoza would have agreed with Sartre. It's like what Heidegger said upon being told that Sartre was just taking what Heidegger wrote and expanding upon it. To which Heidegger replied, "I didn't mean that!"

[The Grand Nudger]

Spinoza was brilliant at framing the atheist pov in a way that wouldn't end with him in the clink. It didn't actually fool anyone (at the time or now), but it evaded a strict legalist interpretation of criminal expression, lol.

:golf clap:

[negatio]

bennyboy  I have attempted, for decades, to cast my position in ordinary language , which has ultimately proven to be impossible.  I wish I could set forth my position in simple positivist terms, for ordinary positivistically  oriented persons; however, setting-forth a disproof of Judaeo/Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language, rather, destruction/disproof of extant Deity requires employment of the language of  determination as negation, because, the several putative Gods in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation, and, I do realize, it is very difficult to follow, at first glance, language which describes the origin of human action as a wholly negative proceeding. The language of negation which I employ is, in fact, radically simple, just not to or for those who are encountering the language game of human determination to action as negation, for, the very first time... I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to consider my writing...which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a boy's high school historicity;  rather, it is predicated  upon many decades of studying the most difficult writings extant in our world, i.e., that of J.P. Sartre's Being and Nothingness, et. al.  Duane C.

4.  Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
    Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all  the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of non-existants, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever.  For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).

I suspect our boy here has learned that in high school, if you put enough big words into enough sentences, your English teacher will just give you an A+ not to have to try to understand you.  But any good argument should have as its goal maximal linguistic simplicity, not maximal annoyance.  I did take the time to read this point, and it at least seems linguistically sound.  (In the OP's defense, anyone willing to voluntarily read Sartre probably considers this kind of language the norm-- ewwww)

That being said, I haven't read it all, because language this dense requires a level of investment that I'm not willing to make on somebody's first post.  I have my own internal consciousnesses to ponder on the basis that they are a predicate for determinative action, and the OP's verbiage is too grandiose to merit anything but defenestration!

(see, I can do it too, and I admit it's kind of fun)

---

One need not ontologically disprove something for which there is no credible evidence.

No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[Angrboda]

In truth, I gave up halfway through your magnum opus here. You had started to be repetitious. I have no trouble understanding Sartre. It's your argument that I have difficulty with. At best, whatever point you have attempted to make has been obscured by your generally shitty exposition of it.

[bennyboy]

bennyboy  I have attempted, for decades, to cast my position in ordinary language , which has ultimately proven to be impossible.  I wish I could set forth my position in simple positivist terms, for ordinary positivistically  oriented persons; however, setting-forth a disproof of Judaeo/Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language, rather, destruction/disproof of extant Deity requires employment of the language of  determination as negation, because, the several putative Gods in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation, and, I do realize, it is very difficult to follow, at first glance, language which describes the origin of human action as a wholly negative proceeding. The language of negation which I employ is, in fact, radically simple, just not to or for those who are encountering the language game of human determination to action as negation, for, the very first time... I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to consider my writing...which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a boy's high school historicity;  rather, it is predicated  upon many decades of studying the most difficult writings extant in our world, i.e., that of J.P. Sartre's Being and Nothingness, et. al.  Duane C.

"bennyboy, I have tried for decades to explain my position in ordinary language, but this has ultimately proven impossible. I wish I could explain myself in simple positivist terms; however, disproving the idea of a Judeo-Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language. Rather, it requires using language of determination as negation, because the God ideas in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation. I, on the other hand. . . "

I'd recommend the following rules:
1) Avoid using rare terms when more common terms will do. Pull out the vocabulary only for technical terms used in a given area of study.
2) Limit sentences to about three clauses unless you have a compelling reason to increase complexity. Most people can process about what they can read in 7 seconds as a single idea, and can symbolize only a few complex ideas at one time.
3) Avoid metacommentary or redundant language. For example, you didn't really need to use the term "putative" at all, especially followed by "in question." Cool word, but unneeded.
4) For online forums, lead with a point summary or just a couple of tenets, and see if you get any interest before bringing out the full proof.

I don't mean to insult or to be pedantic, but if you really do have an interest in having your proof discussed and talked about, you'll have to make the material a little more approachable. Being right isn't good enough-- you have to be heard.

---

I have no trouble understanding Sartre. 

I had tremendous trouble understanding Sartre.  Far too much density for what in the end turn out to be reasonably simple ideas.  Especially annoying were the constant references to other thinkers in laying out his foundation-- I don't particularly want to read through all the foundational texts of a field in order to understand what the guy's talking about.

I'd contrast him with Camus, whose ideas while sometimes philosophically challenging, can probably be read with good effect by a reasonably clever 12 year-old.

Or maybe I'm just not that good a reader. . .

[negatio]

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.

 My writing appears nonsensical to you because you are a positivist materialistically oriented person, and, I am someone looking and describing the world from an other, i.e., a nihilitive side, of the looking glass.  You  have simply encountered a totally different perspectival world view, and, you have neither the education nor the reflection requisite to possibly follow the distinctive and different weltanschauung, which you just now  encounter !  I sincerely appreciate you deeming my writing as potentially significant; while, all the while, it is a radically beautiful and glib song which has, in fact, overthrown "law" within a purely theoretical sphere...  You are projecting a beautifully positive take upon what I am enunciating, and, I really appreciate that...Thank You. Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[vulcanlogician]

One's worldview doesn't factor into it. Your meaning isn't clear. You should write in a way that anyone with any worldview can understand. Spinoza did. Sartre did. You can too.

As has been pointed out, you mention America several times in your argument. It is unclear how America is relevant to a disproof of God. Maybe it would help if you removed any and all irrelevant portions of the argument.

[negatio]

In truth, I gave up halfway through your magnum opus here.  You had started to be repetitious.  I have no trouble understanding Sartre.  It's your argument that I have difficulty with.  At best, whatever point you have attempted to make has been obscured by your generally shitty exposition of it.

  I surely do indeed appear to be repetitious, I am wholly and radically repetitious, while, all the while, it is merely that the most fundamental tenant of my writing style is to clearly repeat each cardinal feature, as I spiral upward to a full explanation of what I shall, finally,  fully proffer regarding a particular point of discussion .  I cannot stand writers who continually use the radically vague terms "this"/"that", to refer back to their subject , instead of clearly enunciating the particular subject over and over again, in the attempt to be consistently clear, even though the entire ensemble, at first glance, appears to the reader to be unintelligible nonsense, presented via shit language, while, all the while, it is the reader\'s lack of education and reflection within the particular arena the auteur is engaging, which gives the reader the appearance that the author is failing to properly say what the author is saying, in the only possible way which he can, while attempting, in this case, to communicate entirely negative constructs to wholly positivist readers, who have, given their positivist world view, little qualification for following nihilative reasoning

---

One's worldview doesn't factor into it. Your meaning isn't clear. You should write in a way that anyone with any worldview can understand. Spinoza did. Sartre did. You can too.

As has been pointed out, you mention America several times in your argument. It is unclear how America is relevant to a disproof of God. Maybe it would help if you removed any and all irrelevant portions of the argument.

  America is not mentioned in the proximal portion of the essay wherein I posit my ontological disproof of Deity as we currently think of deity, when I subsequently turn to destructivecritique of the American legal system, which system is predicated upon Biblical Deity attempting to control and judge mankind, that I repeatedly employ America/American, because, it is the American legal system which my language has, purely upon a theoretical plane, detotalized by describing what I dub jurisprudential illusion.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quotes

[brewer]

Increase the dose of Lithium and/or Depakote.