Ontological Disproof of God

[bennyboy]

Negatio, I explained how you could very easily simplify your language without losing any meaning. I even gave an example of your sentences translated into functional English.

It should be any communicator's goal to explain as concisely (read: eloquently) as possible. Dumping a bunch of unnecessarily verbiose syntax on casual readers is rude and unlikely to achieve any positive goal except giving people an arena in which to try their favorite new cat memes.

What's your goal here? If it's to practice your vocabulary, well done. Most of your words are used correctly. If it's to communicate ideas you have an actual interest in, then you can a) communicate properly; or b) just blame everyone for not wanting to wade through your text wall.

Does (b) really give you more satisfaction than a sincere discussion would? If so, fine. If not, then I recommend looking at the points I gave you and learning something about writing style. At the risk of lacking humility, it's something I'm qualified to teach, and something I believe you could learn.

[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.

 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

[Lucanus]

I'm browsing an internet forum, not getting a major in philosophy. I don't have time - nor do I want - to read Spinoza to understand what someone on the internet writes.

Your inability to express yourself simply makes your attempts at philosophy one of two things:
a) a juvenile attempt at developing a personal worldview but taking everything way too seriously and expecting everyone to share your personal sensibilities;
b) trolling.

ETA: and especially in these times of full-throttle anti-intellectualism, it is important for people who deem themselves "intellectuals" to climb down the fucking Ivory tower and let everyone understand their message. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

Also, I'm leaning towards the second option, since you still have trouble using BBCode to quote people even though it has been explained very clearly how to do it... And besides, there's a button that does that automatically! You can't mess it up. Jeez.

[bennyboy]

I feel I gave this guy a real chance, and some constructive criticism. But now, whatever interest I had is waning quickly, due to his unwillingness to adapt appropriately to the medium, and his complete lack of grace in doing so.

Troll located, and troll ideas hereby summarily dismissed.

[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

[negatio]

I'm browsing an internet forum, not getting a major in philosophy. I don't have time - nor do I want - to read Spinoza to understand what someone on the internet writes.

Your inability to express yourself simply makes your attempts at philosophy one of two things:
a) a juvenile attempt at developing a personal worldview but taking everything way too seriously and expecting everyone to share your personal sensibilities;
b) trolling.

ETA: and especially in these times of full-throttle anti-intellectualism, it is important for people who deem themselves "intellectuals" to climb down the fucking Ivory tower and let everyone understand their message. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

Also, I'm leaning towards the second option, since you still have trouble using BBCode to quote people even though it has been explained very clearly how to do it... And besides, there's a button that does that automatically! You can't mess it up. Jeez.

What on earth is this constant and absurdly obsessive insistence upon simplicity ?! It simply is not possible to put considerations as complex as those of describing the defeasibility of extant Scriptural mistaken notions of Deity, and, of describing mistaken notions employed by current American jurisprudence, which mistaken juristic notions are based on the mistaken notions entertained by biblical Deity, wherein both Deity and Man mistakenly presuppose that written language of law is somehow determinative of human action ! Occam\s razor cannot possibly apply here. Stripping these considerations down to the bone would make it absolutely impossible for me to impart that which I am severally describing via employing contemporary negative intellectual instruments, which instruments actually are simple, but radically unfamiliar and abstract...You do not have to read Spinoza's entire works to reflect upon his dictum; which both Hegel and Sartre employ in extensio, i.e., "All determination is negation." Thank you...Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[chimp3]

Long winded diatribe disproving something which can't be defined.

[Lucanus]

What on earth is this constant and absurdly obsessive insistence upon simplicity ?!  It simply is not possible to put considerations as complex as those of describing the defeasibility of extant Scriptural mistaken notions of Deity, and, of describing mistaken notions employed by current American jurisprudence, which mistaken juristic notions are based on the mistaken notions entertained by biblical Deity, wherein both Deity and Man mistakenly presuppose that written language of law is somehow determinative of human action !  Occam\'s razor cannot possibly apply here.  Stripping these considerations down to the bone would make it absolutely impossible for me to impart that which I am severally describing via employing contemporary negative intellectual instruments, which instruments actually are simple, but radically unfamiliar and abstract...You do not have to read Spinoza's entire works to reflect upon his dictum; which both Hegel and Sartre employ in extensio,  i.e., "All determination is negation."   Thank you...Duane C.'

This is my next copypasta. Witness me.

On a more serious note. Simplicity makes your thoughts accessible. You can start with formatting your text in a way that is easy on the eyes of us mortals.

Like this, see? I press enter and my text gets neatly sent one line away, isolated from the rest and reflecting that I am developing my point further.

Then, there is the vocabulary issue. I, too, have struggled to reduce my exquisitely refined usage of latinate terms in an effort to appeal to the common plebeian on the street. /s

Simplicity makes you look like you know what you are talking about, and it's appropriate for a public forum where only few people have academic understanding of philosophy and theology. I appreciate the need for a thorough and even academically accurate analysis of the topic, but this is hardly the place for that kind of discussion. An internet forum is a casual venue, you're wasting time, both yours and ours.

Ps: quotes still messed up. I guess your brain is too busy handling complex vocabulary to learn simple BBCode. You trolly troll.

---

Or, as we say in Italy, "Speak the way you eat"

[Abaddon_ire]

WHAT YOU DID...

I'm browsing an internet forum, not getting a major in philosophy. I don't have time - nor do I want - to read Spinoza to understand what someone on the internet writes.

Your inability to express yourself simply makes your attempts at philosophy one of two things:
a) a juvenile attempt at developing a personal worldview but taking everything way too seriously and expecting everyone to share your personal sensibilities;
b) trolling.

ETA: and especially in these times of full-throttle anti-intellectualism, it is important for people who deem themselves "intellectuals" to climb down the fucking Ivory tower and let everyone understand their message. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

Also, I'm leaning towards the second option, since you still have trouble using BBCode to quote people even though it has been explained very clearly how to do it... And besides, there's a button that does that automatically! You can't mess it up. Jeez.

WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE.

I'm browsing an internet forum, not getting a major in philosophy. I don't have time - nor do I want - to read Spinoza to understand what someone on the internet writes.

Your inability to express yourself simply makes your attempts at philosophy one of two things:
a) a juvenile attempt at developing a personal worldview but taking everything way too seriously and expecting everyone to share your personal sensibilities;
b) trolling.

ETA: and especially in these times of full-throttle anti-intellectualism, it is important for people who deem themselves "intellectuals" to climb down the fucking Ivory tower and let everyone understand their message. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

Also, I'm leaning towards the second option, since you still have trouble using BBCode to quote people even though it has been explained very clearly how to do it... And besides, there's a button that does that automatically! You can't mess it up. Jeez.

What on earth is this constant and absurdly obsessive insistence upon simplicity ?!  

It simply is not possible to put considerations as complex as those of describing the defeasibility of extant Scriptural mistaken notions of Deity, and, of describing mistaken notions employed by current American jurisprudence, which mistaken juristic notions are based on the mistaken notions entertained by biblical Deity, wherein both Deity and Man mistakenly presuppose that written language of law is somehow determinative of human action !  

Occam's razor cannot possibly apply here. Stripping these considerations down to the bone would make it absolutely impossible for me to impart that which I am severally describing via employing contemporary negative intellectual instruments, which instruments actually are simple, but radically unfamiliar and abstract...You do not have to read Spinoza.

How hard can that be?

Consider yourself fed with a plastic spoon from a jar of Heinz Apple Custard.

[Lucanus]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand BBCode. The logic behind it is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of complex programming languages most of the functionalities will go over a typical user's head.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯