Ontological Disproof of God

[Astreja]

I'm out too. Can't cure a narcissist because everything is always Someone Else's Fault.

[Abaddon_ire]

Horse. Water. Drink.

Plenty of members would have happily set him straight, including myself. However, he immediately took all of that as a personal affront for reasons we can only guess.

Once he became insufferably rude, I happily held his feet to the flames.

[KevinM1]

I'll admit it - I was a jerk to him. But, really, what do you expect the reaction to be when you randomly dump a wall of text on people without any kind of introduction? No one is so brilliant that I'm going to earnestly engage with them after they've, from moment one, demonstrated their own rudeness.

This is an internet forum where people from all walks of life can come together and interact. And while the philosophy section is supposed to be about philosophy, it's open to all that want to contribute. Ivory tower, "look how smart I am" bullshit won't fly, especially from someone who has done nothing to actually be a member of the community aside from their treatise dump.

Social graces may be a rare sight on the web, but they still count here. I would never dump a philosophical argument on a bunch of strangers, and then whine about how dumb and lazy they are when they ask "WTF is this?" The mere idea of it is ridiculous.

[LastPoet]

Fucking hell, have I landed on readers digest "test your vocabulary" section?

[bennyboy]

It's not our place to explain how every little piece of the forum works.  These are common features of any forum software, well understood by those who regularly frequent such forums.  We're not about to dumb down our discourse because you are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting and learn how it works.

The "heavy lifting" being the ability to type:

Code:

[quote]
some stuff
[/quote]
Response to some stuff.

I find it difficult that someone could be literate enough to put all those vocab words into one pile, but not able to do the above.

It's all so very sad. I was just getting ready to roll up my sleeves and ask questions about the OP, writing density and redundancy be damned, but the infantile hostility (autism triggered, am I right, negatio?) makes it hard for me to sustain any interest.

[KevinM1]

It's not our place to explain how every little piece of the forum works.  These are common features of any forum software, well understood by those who regularly frequent such forums.  We're not about to dumb down our discourse because you are unwilling or unable to do the heavy lifting and learn how it works.

The "heavy lifting" being the ability to type:

Code:

[quote]
some stuff
[/quote]
Response to some stuff.

I find it difficult that someone could be literate enough to put all those vocab words into one pile, but not able to do the above.

Ditto. I was also enjoying turning his words/attitude back around on him. If he doesn't want to write without superfluous flourishes and really awkward phrasing (seriously, "while, all the while" would get a red pen in a high school English class), then why should anyone want to help him handle ubiquitous online forum software? Respect is a two-way street, and his purported philosophical brilliance means fuckall if he can't be bothered to at least make a token effort to present himself better.

I mean, if he doesn't care what we think, then why bother writing the screed on a forum at all? There are better ways to archive one's work, even digitally, than hoping whatever random server you put it on remains functioning, or that anyone who stumbles upon it will even bother to read it.

Of course, I'm 99% sure this is a troll job aimed at poking fun at smarmy, ironically holier-than-thou internet atheists. Like I said earlier, it's a decent effort, but it didn't stick the landing. Everything was too pronounced, and the pieces of his story/motivations never quite fit.

[bennyboy]

I'm going to say something in defense of the OP.

I have no doubt that the original intent of the post was sincere enough, and was not trolling. The emotional language used by the OP in response to perceived hostility from the forum community shows that he had at least some hope of being praised for his intellectual efforts.

I've experienced this kind of language plenty of times as an English teacher. Among ESL students, unnecessary complexity is a kind of flexing-- just showing off that they CAN use those words, and CAN use those elaborate sentence forms. In that case, there usually is a well-formed argument under there somewhere, and simplifying the language results in a better work of writing.

Among native English speakers, this kind of stuff is almost always done by college students with a term paper deadline-- they pad the sentences to meet a word count requirement, and scramble the structure as a challenge to the teacher: "If you can make sense of this, you'll see that there's very little substance under all these words. But I challenge you: give me my 'A,' or put off the other 200 term papers for an extra 30 minutes while you wade through mine." In this case, the student will be highly resistant to requests to simplify- as it essentially means he's going to have to write a paper, after all.

This case is different, and a little outside my body of experience. He's brought this writing into a forum to be judged. Why, then, wouldn't he make the ideas as clear as possible? Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language? I'm reasonably confident that we're looking at some kind of narcissistic / OCD / austistic personality here. He's clearly a very high IQ person, but cannot organize ideas in a way that others would consider coherent. In other words, he HAS to use language in this way, because it's the most natural expression how he thinks. Therefore, attacks on his writing style constitute a perceived attack on his personhood, because the former is a direct expression of the latter. He's neither showing off NOR attempting to confound us-- he just doesn't think like we do.

And I don't mean that as an insult. If my guess turns out to be true, it would probably change the way I dealt with the OP, and certainly I'd be more willing to take the time to read the entire piece. negatio, what say you? Am I on the mark?

[emjay]

Yeah, it's sad. I was just holding out for the summary version of the OP, and the quotes to be fixed, but the interest was there because its not everyday someone comes along thinking they have a proof for the non existence of God. So of course I was interested, but then it went to shit. So I may still attempt to read the OP in full at some point and make sense of it, but as far as interacting with this guy goes, seems too much like walking on eggshells, or being completely ignored, so not the best first impression I've gotta say.

---

@benny. I kind of - possibly - understood what he was meaning about 'this and that'... because I'm similar sometimes, especially reading philosophy or complex ideas; it's hard to keep track of the context sometimes, so if it has redundancy and repeats terms then that can help sometimes in understanding, reducing the amount of implicit (rather than explicit) context you have to keep in mind/remember. Like reading a book, I find it helps if they at least occasionally fully identify what they are talking about, by name, rather than just saying 'this' or 'that', so that I'm sure we're on the same page... figuratively speaking. Not sure this is exactly negatio's reason but just saying I think it's a possibility.

[negatio]

I'm going to say something in defense of the OP.

I have no doubt that the original intent of the post was sincere enough, and was not trolling.  The emotional language used by the OP in response to perceived hostility from the forum community shows that he had at least some hope of being praised for his intellectual efforts.

I've experienced this kind of language plenty of times as an English teacher.  Among ESL students, unnecessary complexity is a kind of flexing-- just showing off that they CAN use those words, and CAN use those elaborate sentence forms.  In that case, there usually is a well-formed argument under there somewhere, and simplifying the language results in a better work of writing.

Among native English speakers, this kind of stuff is almost always done by college students with a term paper deadline-- they pad the sentences to meet a word count requirement, and scramble the structure as a challenge to the teacher: "If you can make sense of this, you'll see that there's very little substance under all these words.  But I challenge you: give me my 'A,' or put off the other 200 term papers for an extra 30 minutes while you wade through mine."  In this case, the student will be highly resistant to requests to simplify- as it essentially means he's going to have to write a paper, after all.

This case is different, and a little outside my body of experience.  He's brought this writing into a forum to be judged.  Why, then, wouldn't he make the ideas as clear as possible?  Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language?  I'm reasonably confident that we're looking at some kind of narcissistic / OCD / austistic personality here.  He's clearly a very high IQ person, but cannot organize ideas in a way that others would consider coherent.  In other words, he HAS to use language in this way, because it's the most natural expression how he thinks.  Therefore, attacks on his writing style constitute a perceived attack on his personhood, because the former is a direct expression of the latter.  He's neither showing off NOR attempting to confound us-- he just doesn't think like we do.

And I don't mean that as an insult.  If my guess turns out to be true, it would probably change the way I dealt with the OP, and certainly I'd be more willing to take the time to read the entire piece.  negatio, what say you?  Am I on the mark?

Okay, bennyboy.  You just gave me a superb and very fair attempted description of what you think I am doing in this forum.  You clearly are an experienced evaluator of papers. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder no way !  Autistic, no way ! Narcissistic, yes, that does seem to make some sense, given the way I have spoken regarding myself, and, I seem to be too great even for my own damn self !I have no experience in this ilk of forum.  I am absolutely ignorant of even of what you guys are talking about regarding quoting other members, and, quoting historical persons.  I am the kind of strange dude that can follow the most abstruse philosophical position, but am a total and absolute failure at understanding how to play Texas hold-em; my friends cannot believe it, I cannot follow the unfolding of the game, it appears to me the rules change with every hand !  I win the money, because I understand the value of the hands, but I envy those who so fully understand the game.Following all this code stuff in regard to referencing appears to be as impossible for me as to achieve attainment of a reflective understanding of Texas hold-em !  When I click of a page as advised by members nothing  happens even remotely like what they are telling me...I am, at this point, pretty totally lost in the middle of the woods regarding how to post my responses, and quote auteurs...\Now is the time for all good men to.'  Goofy 'Sapientality' ...is that it ?I truly was not intending to be rude by placing such an idiosyncratic writing on your forum; I had absolutely no idea it would be deemed rude a priori !I have read all the criticisms of my writing and my recent conduct, and it is mostly good and kind...some persons were so mean and insulting they successfully goaded me and truly pissed me off !Your attempt to  understand what I am doing writing in a fashion which  others take such violent offense to is appreciated.  To think that I am  intentionally hoping to cause problems here, for the sake of attaining some thrill or profit is incorrect.  I do apologize for laying what you guys call a solid wall of text on you, and, I was not trying to do anything against anyone.There are some radically intelligent people here, who have done me a lot of edification.  Surely I want to communicate...I cannot write in the multiplicity of fashions which would be required by all of the several demands members have made...I have always thought the ideal means of setting forth what I want to say would be bit by bit,  in piecemeal fashion...if you view my fragments they are mostly small and discrete units, attempting to say what I wish bit by bit...one member's idea of writing an introduction is sound.Bennyboy, I totally appreciate your sagacious concern...By the way, what the hell does OP mean ?

---

Yeah, it's sad. I was just holding out for the summary version of the OP, and the quotes to be fixed, but the interest was there because its not everyday someone comes along thinking they have a proof for the non existence of God. So of course I was interested, but then it went to shit. So I may still attempt to read the OP in full at some point and make sense of it, but as far as interacting with this guy goes, seems too much like walking on eggshells, or being completely ignored, so not the best first impression I've gotta say.

---

@benny. I kind of - possibly - understood what he was meaning about 'this and that'... because I'm similar sometimes, especially reading philosophy or complex ideas; it's hard to keep track of the context sometimes, so if it has redundancy and repeats terms then that can help sometimes in understanding, reducing the amount of implicit (rather than explicit) context you have to keep in mind/remember. Like reading a book, I find it helps if they at least occasionally fully identify what they are talking about, by name, rather than just saying 'this' or 'that', so that I'm sure we're on the same page... figuratively speaking. Not sure this is exactly negatio's reason but just saying I think it's a possibility.

Yes @Benny, that is precisely and exactly what I am doing...continually maintaining a clarity about what I am attempting to describe via intentional repetitions...

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote tags

[brewer]

Anybody notice that his communication skills are improving? No longer over the top like the OP (Original Post).