Ontological Disproof of God

[KevinM1]

OP, well, for starters, you could put down the thesaurus and write according to the audience you purportedly want to reach. What you think is style is merely obfuscation. Rather than clearly expressing your ideas, you seem to simply enjoy appearing intelligent by throwing as many superfluous words into the mix as you can muster. It's anything but impressive.

In my experience, those who have truly mastered what they claim to know can express even complex ideas plainly. Rather than complain that we're, essentially, too dumb and/or lazy to understand you, maybe take a crack at meeting us halfway? After all, you're the one proclaiming that your treatise has value. One would think you'd want it to be accessible. Otherwise, your persistent tut-tutting merely shows you to be a snob, providing evidence to my accusation above.

Assuming you're not simply an internet troll that's dialed the stereotypical online atheist persona up to 11, of course.

[negatio]

Hey, you are formatting the quotes incorrectly, man. Fix that.

PS: It has been shown by emjay and myself how to quote properly... read back through our posts in the thread.

  Since according to you guys I am quoting authors incorrectly, since I am incorrect, I do not  understand what you are trying to tell me.  Show me by correcting an instance of what I am doing wrong, please.  Duane

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[negatio]

OP, well, for starters, you could put down the thesaurus and write according to the audience you purportedly want to reach.  What you think is style is merely obfuscation.  Rather than clearly expressing your ideas, you seem to simply enjoy appearing intelligent by throwing as many superfluous words into the mix as you can muster.  It's anything but impressive.

In my experience, those who have truly mastered what they claim to know can express even complex ideas plainly.  Rather than complain that we're, essentially, too dumb and/or lazy to understand you, maybe take a crack at meeting us halfway?  After all, you're the one proclaiming that your treatise has value.  One would think you'd want it to be accessible.  Otherwise, your persistent tut-tutting merely shows you to be a snob, providing evidence to my accusation above.

Assuming you're not simply an internet troll that's dialed the stereotypical online atheist persona up to 11, of course.

 I do not  use a thesaurus, ever.  I am not trying to pretend to be intelligent,(I am intelligent in the sense that I have an IQ in the superior range), nor am I attempting to obfuscate.  I am simply writing employing terminology and theoretical constructs which have their basis in twentieth century existential writings.  I cannot communicate what I want to say by using the language of some putative indeterminate "audience".  All my terms exist in the English language and are peculiar to writers who base their thought upon negatives: non-being; nothingness; negation; nihilation; negatite.  I am not purposely putting in more words that necessary; I have cut my sentences to the bone over years of reading and re writing...I would vainlywish I could employ the words other persons deem preferable to mine, however, that  is impossible; I cannot suddenly become someone other that I am, and , all of a sudden write otherwise that I do !  I cannot realistically expect persons who are now living to follow/understand what I am setting forth.  According to Plato it takes five hundred years for a thinkers writings to become commonplace among ordinary persons.  I am writing for the future, and, it would be luxury and miracle for contemporary persons to understand my particular ilk of language.  I cannot and do not expect you to instantaneously understand what I am writing.  Certain PhD\'s are familiar with the species of philosophical thinking I employ, and, possibly certain doctors of jurisprudence...What you have to do  is let off complaining about how and what I write, and, if you wish to engage in philosophy, set yourself to the extremely difficult task of researching every word and theoretical construct which you encounter in an unfamiliar writing, and, ultimately, take an  understanding of what is being said...what is being said is intelligible...I cannot lower my thinking in order that unscholarly persons may attain an instant understanding thereof...for that is wholly impossible. I am writing something which has never ever before been thought to write, i.e., a destructive critique of existing notions of law whereupon our very civilization is built; I can write it because I have made myself familiar with ideas with which the vast majority of all other persons on earth are unfamiliar.  Therefore, I will choose the words and the sentences which I deem necessary to enunciate the brand new task which I have undertaken.  The very last possibility would be that it is up to you to suggest that my words and sentences are incorrect !  What do you know about accomplishing a viable theoretical destruction of the very foundational mistaken presuppositions which underpin our extant civilization !?  What I have to say has had to be cast in the terms which I have employed:  Jurisprudence; negation; double nihilation; and, I have explained these terms in the text...You are very very mistaken if you think that I can suddenly evaporate as Duane and reappear as someone other than myself, for the sake of living up to the expectations of some indefinite series of others !All through college whenever a professor would grade a paper I had written I always thought to myself, "Where is this ideal paper to which he is comparing mine !"  No such ideal and preferred paper exists. I am clearly expressing my ideas, I think that these ideas are  so alien to you that you think they are unintelligible nonsense, and, therefore, should be written in accord with your estimation.I assure you the ideas I set forth are highly I intelligible, and, it must be that the readers lack the particular education and determination to slowly and painfully make the effort to follow what is being set forth.  I cannot possibly cast my  new and radical critique of our existing legal system in the old threadbare cloth of old and outworn theoretical language, which language cannot permit me to make the criticisms which I deem myself obligated to write.I write for the sake of fulfilling my Socratic responsibility to critique the civilization that bore and nurtured me...My requirement is simply to place my writing within a historical record, like this particular forum...for the sake of the future.  I do not expect to have the pleasure of having my contemporaries understand what I am saying...any understanding they might attain is up to them, and, is not up to me.  I have written this in the very best fashion which I possibly can, however, it is  not instantly comprehensible to all persons, so be it.  Thanks a million.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to correct quote

[Astreja]

  If you don't think that we can understand your ideas, then why go to the trouble of expounding them at all?  Why not just enjoy your ideas without trying to communicate them?

Edited to add:  If you're writing for the future, this forum is not a good place.  The Internet is a volatile place where server hardware crashes, sites get abandoned, and the best of ideas get lost in the noise.  This thread of yours, for instance, will eventually vanish from the front page of the Philosophy forum and few if any people will go through multiple pages to read all the older posts.

My advice is to not get caught up in painstakingly writing about your ideas, but to explain the ideas as simply as possible so they have a chance of being understood by others.  That gives them a much better chance for long-term survival.

[negatio]

Placing my writing on a forum is my way of preserving it and at the same time exhibiting it openly; for the sake of proving that I wrote it.  I can always find it on the net.  What others may or may not understand is out of my control.  I have several earlier versions of my post on another forum and it cannot be removed, even by me; and, it is there, in my original language, showing that I wrote such  and such first and at a particular moment in history.

I am exceedingly interested in what others think and have to say, although the unexpected and ongoing argument against my person instead of my position is tiresome !

---

Dude, it's:

Code:

[quote='author']
Content to quote
[/quote]

Somehow you're putting the content to quote inside the opening quote tag, after the equals sign, where the author is supposed to go... instead of between the opening and closing quote tags.

  I am employing a collegiate mode of presenting quotations and of designating the author\'s name and source.  Clearly I know nothing of what is deemed the proper way of quoting a writer, giving his name, and source, on the World Wide Web.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[Angrboda]

[Lucanus]

Sorry OP could you try not to move please? I'm afraid the massive stick you have up your rectum may rupture your intestine.

[KevinM1]

"I couldn't possibly write this any better."

Bullshit.  You could've:

1. Had an introductory page or two where you lay out, in broad terms, what your argument is, perhaps with a quick reference to what other work(s) you based it on
2. Took a page or two for each section of the argument itself

When I complain about readability, it's not just your writing style, it's that you simply dumped a poorly formatted (for an internet forum... know your medium/audience) screed on us.

Ultimately, I really don't care.  I tend to avoid philosophy because I find it so dreadfully boring.  It always seems to devolve into pedantic nitpicking with very little practical value.  My curiosity was piqued for a brief moment, but frankly I have better things to do.

[SaStrike]

This guy's living in 4018.

[Lucanus]

This guy's living in 4018.

We're playing checkers and he's playing 4-D chess