Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

Yes, indeed, Iwnkyaaimi, that is an ongoing and serious problem for me in  my discussions with friends,  whom I have known for decades, when we interact over my theories, which high-falutin theoretical language makes such constant reference to 'ontological', in my intently repetitious fashion, on and on, over and over again.
''onto'' simply means being; and, ''-ology" merely means ''the study of'', thus, the study of being, the being being studied is the human being, thus ''ontology'' , the study of human being. Thank You Iwnkyaaimi !  Negatio.

Ah, the consequences of erudite vernacular utilised irrespective of necessity.

Indeed. Ontology simply is the study of that which has "being" or "existence".

Thus the ontological argument for the existence of god rotates around claims of things which exist and the conclusion which might be drawn from that. An example would be the Kalam Cosmological argument for god. It roughly goes like this (there are variations)

Premise 1. Everything which exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

Objection 1: If the cause was god as you claim, then what caused god.

Note that in it's raw state, the conclusion is that the universe had a cause. Kalam has nothing to say about what that cause might be. 

So the god-botherers start adding terms.  

Premise 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

The special pleading for god not having a beginning has started.

At each step, critics will raise objections with the god nuts responding by adding further and further qualifiers until you end up with a theist actually claiming that the answer was "beyond the event horizon of the formless" whatever that means. Somehow, ontological arguments grow until they become unintelligible under the shear weight of word density. They reach a strange kind of critical dictionary mass at which point they implode and nobody has a clue what any of it means on either side of the argument.

Now, the ontological disproof of god starts from a similarly simple place.

Premise 1. Everything which exists may or may not have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore may or may not have a cause.

Simple enough, but inevitably it ends up in exactly the same place, a word salad that nobody can make head nor tail of as we see in the OP.

It is all a rabbit hole of navel gazing that gets nobody anywhere, wastes a lot of time and achieves nothing because the fundamental conclusion leads nowhere.

No matter how complicated one makes the semantic acrobatics, the conclusion is useless in either case. This is, of course, the reason why I give neither ontological argument any credence. They are both an intellectual cul-de-sac wearing an Armani suit.

[negatio]

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

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

The only disproof of god that needs concern anyone is that there is no proof of god's existence.

This statement has a beautiful, far out, appearance. However, mere absence of proof cannot, does not, constitute a disproof. A disproof of God as we currently see him would have to, in fact, be constructed, in language. Disproof does  not simply reside in absence of proof.  Thank you Kit ! Negatio.

---

The language employed isn't the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents.

No shit, Dick Tracy ! If I were to take a guess, while trying to put myself in the shoes of Khemikal's idiosyncratic perspectival view, to pursue what he thinks he sees in my OP, I, on first try, at guessing what serious problem(s) Khemikall's consciousness is imagining, I would immediately leap into describing the most outrageous of possible possibilities reqarding what those problems are; I, personally, think one could be: So boldly asserting that my weird fucking language is efficient to accomplish a theoretical destruction of the very most fundamental and mistaken presupposition employed by doctors of jurisprudence/jurisprudence...right, it is not the weird fucking language, it is the devastation which a successful employment of the language could wreak within our sociosphere.  An absolute theoretical destruction of jurisprudence could be alike a destructive tidal wave, smashing the fuck out of what we now employ as the very basis of our civilization; yea, that could be a fucking problem Khemikal , no fucking shit ! However, that is how Abraham Lincoln eventually won the Presidency, he destroyed the existing American civilization, and, instituted a religion of law in America...read his biographers...I want to overthrow ontological unintelligibility in the American religion that is law...thereby we Americans might, once again, breathe the sweet air of Liberty via becoming reflectively ontologically free, i.e., by learning how human freedom actually transpires via human consciousness, not, via law....

the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents. 
More consequences of the OP: The OP kills all the lawyers, en mass,accomplishing Shakespeare's exhortation urging all lawyers be killed.
The OP is an unassailable and indefeasible existential ontological theory of civilization. 
Now, to read Abaddon__ire's most recent post on this thread...glad to hear from him, was sure he was finally through with me once and for all, because I am doing such strange stuff with BB code for referencing auteurs...

---

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

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

Ah, the consequences of erudite vernacular utilised irrespective of necessity.

Indeed. Ontology simply is the study of that which has "being" or "existence".

Thus the ontological argument for the existence of god rotates around claims of things which exist and the conclusion which might be drawn from that. An example would be the Kalam Cosmological argument for god. It roughly goes like this (there are variations)

Premise 1. Everything which exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

Objection 1: If the cause was god as you claim, then what caused god.

Note that in it's raw state, the conclusion is that the universe had a cause. Kalam has nothing to say about what that cause might be. 

So the god-botherers start adding terms.  

Premise 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore had a cause.

The special pleading for god not having a beginning has started.

At each step, critics will raise objections with the god nuts responding by adding further and further qualifiers until you end up with a theist actually claiming that the answer was "beyond the event horizon of the formless" whatever that means. Somehow, ontological arguments grow until they become unintelligible under the shear weight of word density. They reach a strange kind of critical dictionary mass at which point they implode and nobody has a clue what any of it means on either side of the argument.

Now, the ontological disproof of god starts from a similarly simple place.

Premise 1. Everything which exists may or may not have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion 1: The universe therefore may or may not have a cause.

Simple enough, but inevitably it ends up in exactly the same place, a word salad that nobody can make head nor tail of as we see in the OP.

It is all a rabbit hole of navel gazing that gets nobody anywhere, wastes a lot of time and achieves nothing because the fundamental conclusion leads nowhere.

No matter how complicated one makes the semantic acrobatics, the conclusion is useless in either case. This is, of course, the reason why I give neither ontological argument any credence. They are both an intellectual cul-de-sac wearing an Armani suit.

Beautiful Abaddon, however, my theory is acausal.  I predicate my disproof-theory, which is only a theory regarding, Yahweh/Jehovha/Christ's non-deity, upon human consciousness, which is nothing; it is self-consistent to speculate that my consciousness, a nothing, is the product of a deistic nothingness, which created me simply by placing nothingness into the heart of concrete material cosmic substance; I am a hiatus, an open stage, whereupon the universe appears, probably made precisely in the image of this as yet unthought, unknown creator deity....
 I am an agnostic, and, I am thinking that, clearly, some process transpiring in the cosmos has made me, clearly I am here, so, something indubitably made us, and, that as yet unknown something, perhaps an unknown nothing, an is, or a not, probably a not, is, somehow, my originator.x  Thanks a million Abaddon__ire ! Negatio. Am shutting the generator down now to preserve fuel...

[negatio]

The language employed isn't the biggest problem in the argument. That would be the argument's contents.

The OP is a critique of current American civilization, written in the language of existential phenomenological ontology, and, via employing the intellectual instrumentation of existential phenomenological ontology.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, I get it, you just gave it the wrong title and put it into the wrong section. 

[negatio]

I still do not understand why you feel that the nihilation which you believe grants us radical freedom is incompatible with the view that men are ably ruled by laws.

It is not feeling that I am employing, if I had written "I feel...'' in a philosophical anthropology course, I would have been in deep do do wherein a few females in the class found themselves to be.  It is strictly a function of the omnis determinatio est negatio theoretical construct. Given that all determination is negation, our human determination to act on such and such a wise is purely a double engagement in nothingness, as I explained when describing the double nihilation, which double nihilation is the only means my human consciousness has of originating, of upsurging an act.
Thus, since double nihilation is the solitary mode whereby human beings can create their acts in the world, there being no other way, the positivist religious and judicial view, that God, or a Legislature, can determine absolutely free men to action by a positive, factual, given "law", i.e., by a state of affairs already here and established in the world, is not, cannot be, viable, for human determination to act, or, to refrain from action,proceeds via conscious double nihilation, only. x

---

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

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

Oh, I get it, you just gave it the wrong title and put it into the wrong section. 

I have difficulty following this, that, and, now it.  What it are you referencing Khemikal ?!

[negatio]

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

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

I still do not understand why you feel that the nihilation which you believe grants us radical freedom is incompatible with the view that men are ably ruled by laws.  Given that people do obey laws, in spite of possessing this supposed radical freedom, it would seem you are omitting something.

Secondly, I think you're making an inference about the intentions of God in prescribing laws for men to follow.  Retribution is one possible motive for prescribing laws, but since it requires moral desert, it seems this is your primary incompatibility with the supposed nihilative origin of our actions.  However there are other potential reasons for prescribing laws which don't contradict this sort of freedom.  For example, the goal of laws may be to insure uniformity of conduct by eliminating those whose freedom leads them to violate the laws.  Or, it could simply be to remove them from the community to prevent further acts contrary to the substance of said law.  Or it could be to provide solace and cohesion to other members of the community.   I don't see how any of these aims is at odds with such a nihilatively based freedom, even if such existed (which you haven't really established).

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.

I does not matter why this God thought to employ his law in order to determine the children of Israel to conduct themselves on such  and such a wise, what matters is that he was incorrect in thinking that a given, external, objective, factual state of affairs, like a language of law, would or could be a means to controlling the children of Israel. A human consciousness is a nothingness which is absolutely free because its nothingness insulates it from all processes exterior to it; Neil McCauley, who has become a radically successful thief, understands that his freedom insulates him from the world, he does not obey law, law in actuality cannot be obeyed, he is not and will not be determined to action or inaction by law, which gives us the ''criminal'', not obeying law is not criminal, rather, merely impossible, nonetheless all suffer under the illusion that language of law is determinative of our conduct, we suffer from what is really a jurisprudential delusion, which, being polite, I have called an illusion, whereby we are totally stuck and absolutely convinced that law is, from the outside, controlling our actions, which is an ontologically incorrect position, because, in reality, a reality which delusion misses, all determination is negation, and, jurisprudence is deluded. Mc Cauley is not deluded, he has gut knowledge of what he is as an absolutely free being, he can rob and steal and completely ignore the law, that is what freedom is, freedom is not and cannot be navigated from somewhere outside of itself, via an external and objectively given brute reality like law.  It will be very very very difficult for you to understand how and why law is not an efficacy among men, J., because you are a totally positivistically oriented person; Jurgen Habermas has constructed a theoretical construct which he calls ''objectivistic illusion", whereby he critiques the scientistic world view, we humans can be so radically stuck on our viewpoint, that it becomes nigh impossible to see our weltanschauung to be mistaken.------ It seems simple enough to me, if you have Moses come down the mountain, bearing tablets inscribed with Yahweh's law, just written with Yahweh's own finger, in stone, the inference is inescapable, Yahweh is clearly thinking the language inscribed upon the tablets is an efficacy whereby to determine me to do the things he desires of me...I explained, at length, why I have to use the abstruse language of the theoretical instrumentation I employ, it is a game of absolute hardball wherein I am engaged, why would I soften/dilute/dull my weaponry ?! When I first encountered Sartre's writing in 1970 it was so very radically difficult for me that I knew that I was at a total loss to comprehend it, there was no intermediate language at hand whereby to follow the radically unusual language I had just encountered, which comes, so to speak, from the other side of the looking glass, the negative side, no, I could only keep reading and re-reading, and, read further into the text, and do an intense study of the meaning of each term and each concept, until finally beginning to see what it was about, but, even though it was unintelligible to me, it was not per se unintelligible.  Tell me, J., can you describe to me precisely how you ''obey law'', can you put that ''how'' into language ? So glad to hear from you Jormungandr ! Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

The OP is a critique of current American civilization, written in the language of existential phenomenological ontology, and, via employing the intellectual instrumentation of existential phenomenological ontology.

Oh, I get it, you just gave it the wrong title and put it into the wrong section. 

I have difficulty following this, that, and, now it.  What it are you referencing Khemikal ?!

The OP is a critique of current american civilization, not a disproof of any god.  More politics than philosophy, if you ask me.

[KevinM1]

Negatio, seriously, stop quoting me.  You keep multiquoting myself and others even when the quotes have nothing to do with whatever you're responding to.  If you're responding to a particular post, just click 'Reply' below the post you want to address.  The forum software will quote it for you.  No need to have a continual wall of unrelated junk prepended to your replies.

[Astreja]

^^^ This. I keep on getting alerts because of a quote within a quote, referencing something I wrote days ago without actually addressing what I said. That's pretty sloppy writing, negatio, and it reflects extremely badly on your thinking processes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obvious troll is obvious..but you gotta let it play out.  Just fyi, this will have to continue for about 500 pages before it even get's in the running for best troll.  32 down, 468 to go. Are you committed?

Such is the task before you OP.