Ontological Disproof of God

[Lucanus]

Sure. But I don't really think we disagree when one gets to it, and your posts are spot on. Damned if I can feature where we disagree.

Cool... I'll take that I don't think we disagree either. It just felt like at the beginning one or both of us misread the intentions of the other. But it's not important to rake that up, because it makes no difference to the final outcome - which is that we agree - and it could have just been an (inconsequential) misunderstanding on my part; as I've already said, my reading comprehension is not always the best. But just suggesting that we dropped it to avoid a pointless back and forth arguing over minutiae ... which we've now ended up having anyway

This reads like a mafia post, lol

VOTE: lynch emjay

[emjay]

Cool... I'll take that I don't think we disagree either. It just felt like at the beginning one or both of us misread the intentions of the other. But it's not important to rake that up, because it makes no difference to the final outcome - which is that we agree - and it could have just been an (inconsequential) misunderstanding on my part; as I've already said, my reading comprehension is not always the best. But just suggesting that we dropped it to avoid a pointless back and forth arguing over minutiae ... which we've now ended up having anyway

This reads like a mafia post, lol

VOTE: lynch emjay

Yes... well I was trying to avoid it, for everyone's sake... cos the more I talk, the wallier I get, as everyone well knows

Anyway, come on man, you know you miss it and wanna do it for real and all you gotta do is sign on the dotted line We've been stuck waiting for enough players to get started for several days, so if you did want to, it would really help. In any case I figure you owe me since it was you that dragged me, off the street as it were (in the shout box) into Mafia in the first place Anyway, hope to see you there, but till then...

VOTE: lynch Lucanus

[vulcanlogician]

It would be awesome if we could get the remainder of players.

[Lucanus]

This reads like a mafia post, lol

VOTE: lynch emjay

Yes... well I was trying to avoid it, for everyone's sake... cos the more I talk, the wallier I get, as everyone well knows

Anyway, come on man, you know you miss it and wanna do it for real and all you gotta do is sign on the dotted line We've been stuck waiting for enough players to get started for several days, so if you did want to, it would really help. In any case I figure you owe me since it was you that dragged me, off the street as it were (in the shout box) into Mafia in the first place Anyway, hope to see you there, but till then...

VOTE: lynch Lucanus

Those were the days :p you just gotta be patient!

[negatio]

Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language ?

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay. The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

[The Grand Nudger]

1.  Judeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2.  An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself,
3.  Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ exhibit an incompetent  lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action.  
 
 
 
 
 

There you go.  I pruned your OP post for brevity and relevance.

Hell.  I could sum it up in a single sentence.  "God's awfully dumb for a god".

[Abaddon_ire]

Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language ?

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

At last. Don't dick with the tags. Always put your text outside the tags, either before or after, never in the middle of any tag.

On to the meat of your post.

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.

Wrong. The problem is not language, the problem is that you insisted upon presenting your thoughts in such a comprehensively garbled fashion that they were totally unreadable. This was, of course, compounded by your use of imaginary words that people will likely be unfamiliar with. E.g. "negatite". It isn't really a word at all, merely an egotistical invention of Sartres.

The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.

Perhaps you think it is really well organised and maybe it is inside your head. But what you have presented here would garner an immediate F- at best. It is sloppy, ill-disciplined crap which is irretrievably destroyed by your stubborn refusal to learn proper formatting and basic politeness.

My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...

That I am aware of, the ontological disproof of god first appeared in 1948 so you are hardly original. It seems that all you have done is toss a lot of word salad on a tired old argument.

The ontological proof/disproof of god is exactly the same. All one needs to do is reverse some key phrases to convert the disproof into a proof, or vice-versa. This alone demonstrates how utterly useless the ontological argument is for either case. Either way, the glaring flaws remain.

As an atheist, I find the ontological argument in either direction to be about as useful as a chocolate crash helmet and pretty much as impressive.

I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

First, put the text you want inside "quote" tags like this...

Code:

[quote]Your citation goes here.[/quote]

Second, hurling insults at your interlocutors is unlikely to win friends and influence people.

[emjay]

1.  Judeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2.  An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself,
3.  Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ exhibit an incompetent  lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action.  
 
 
 
 
 

There you go.  I pruned your OP post for brevity and relevance.

Hell.  I could sum it up in a single sentence.  "God's awfully dumb for a god".

Funnily enough I was just this minute thinking of you, thinking what this thread needs is Khemikal to come along and give it the once over As the only one with the patience and logical skill to read the whole OP and determine if is sound, as if simply plugging it into a function

[Lucanus]

I'll do a practical demonstration of what people in this thread have been asking you since the OP.

Why voluntarily go into a forum with this kind of language ?

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.

In a way that can be understood by everyone:

Thinking about it, I see that other members are having a hard time understanding the language and the theoretical concepts of the OP. This may be because the language in the OP is particularly difficult as it involves the description of concepts such as negatives, nothingness, negation and nihilation.

In addition to being difficult, this is also a kind of language that many people may not have encountered in their lifetimes, and which they may surprise them and seem impenetrable at first glance.

See the difference? If things can be stated clearly and simply, they should. Using your unnecessarily complicated and formal language is inappropriate for an internet forum, which is an informal venue for discussion.

[emjay]

Yes... well I was trying to avoid it, for everyone's sake... cos the more I talk, the wallier I get, as everyone well knows

Anyway, come on man, you know you miss it and wanna do it for real and all you gotta do is sign on the dotted line We've been stuck waiting for enough players to get started for several days, so if you did want to, it would really help. In any case I figure you owe me since it was you that dragged me, off the street as it were (in the shout box) into Mafia in the first place Anyway, hope to see you there, but till then...

VOTE: lynch Lucanus

Those were the days :p you just gotta be patient!

Okay, I'll try and be patient But you coming along and lynching me I thought might indicate latent longings to play Anyway, another idea, if you're not ready for that, is you could host again? The first game I ever played was yours... #12 - An Admin's Nightmare... and to this day (ie now signing up for game #87 and having had played 42 games since) that has remained incredibly original, what with trolls, and shitposters, and hackers (oh my!) It was a great game... so that might be a way back in, since modding is less stressful than playing