Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Welcome to the forums, negatio.

Thanks a million Kernel Sohcahtoa. Just for reaching out to me in so radically cool a fashion, and bearing such a totally beautiful name, I am going to utilize this reply to your post in order to launch the rewriting and restructuration of an essay which the members have seriously urged me to write all over from scratch, for a thousand reasons, so here is a new title, and, a new first sentence:

An Important Ramification of Spinoza's Dictum is Disproof of the Deity of Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ.

Spinoza's dictum is"determinatio negatio est", i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which, within seven sentences, it can be shown that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ, are not, cannot be, deities.

[Losty]

What’s so hard about clicking “reply” and writing beneath the quote? I don’t get it.

I would comment on the rest but it looks like a crunchy word salad to me

[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

What’s so hard about clicking “reply” and writing beneath the quote? I don’t get it.

I would comment on the rest but it looks like a crunchy word salad to me

Losty, I am so new to this that it is like having to learn and read Chinese without being able to read Chinese. I have no idea what you are talking about...

[negatio]

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.

Thanks a million Abaddon__Ire, for slapping the piss out of me to the point which my head cleared, and, thereby, I have done it, thusly:

An Important Ramification of Spinoza's Dictum is Disproof of the Deity of Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ.
Spinoza's dictum is "determinatio negatio est", i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which, within seven paragraphs, it can be shown that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ, are not, cannot be, deities.
The type of determination being considered here is human determination to act, and, precisely what is being considered is how human action originates at its source, the source being human consciousness.
Several thinkers have employed, slightly modified, and based their systems of thought upon the Spinozistic dictum. Hegel modified it to "All determination is negation." Then, Sartre, using the Hegelian modification, based his entire magnum opus, "Being and Nothingness", 1943, upon the dictum. One can go as far as to say that every sentence in Sartre's eight hundred plus page work, entails Spinoza's dictum.
Hegel proclaimed the dictum to contain infinite riches; and, as part of the mining of those infinite riches, Sartre realized something which he based upon the dictum, and which precisely describes how human action actually originates by consciousness. What Sartre named the "double nihilation" is a theoretical structure which traces the particular movement of consciousness which constitutes a human act; being, of course a compound or double movement.
Sartre coined the term 'nihilation'. When one actually thinks about it, every word in human language ultimately originates via our human imagination;--- yes, Sartre invented the term 'nihilate', which, he stated, means "to make nothing", and, this in the sense that nothing is produced by consciousness; and, consciousness is nothingness, a nothingness which nihilates or makes the nothing that is human determination to action. Given determinatio negatio est, (determination is negation), and, given that negation is refusal, we have Spinoza's dictum at the foundation of the double nihilation, thus: In the course of originating an act, consciousness projects and posits a not yet existing future state of affairs as its end goal, or objective, which it has not yet attained; i.e., in its project toward this as yet non-existant future, consciousness has, on the one hand, made the nothing which is a not yet realized and as yet absent future; and, the double, the other component, of the double nihilation, is, that, as consciousness upsurges toward its absent and unrealized future, consciousness refuses, abandons, and makes the present, i.e., the given or extant state of affairs, into the nothing that is the past; thus, we have the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness which is the double nihilation, whereby an intended human act originates and upsurges, as a particular, intentional, engagement in the human sociosphere.
Now, to explain why and how Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ, are not, cannot be, deities, in terms of human consciousness enacting the negation which is double nihilation, thus:
1. Judaeo-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, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine doubly nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of non-existants, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness", 1943.
7. Thus, Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, which posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position wholly predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, is the negative theoretical construct central to demonstrating precisely why neither Yahweh, nor Jehovah, nor Jesus Christ, who all mistakenly thought men could be determined to action by the positive, given, factual state of affairs, which is law, it is clearly shown these putative dieties are not, cannot, be Deity.
Therefore, given that God can be shown to be seriously mistaken regarding his notion that his language of law is an efficacy in the sphere of human determination to action, we have hewn an avenue through the ontological unintellibibility practiced by inauthentic diety, to demonstrating, likewise, the ontological unintelligibility of extant American jurisprudence, thus:

[The Grand Nudger]

How does your argument deal with the fact that I would grow copious amounts of weed...if it weren't against the law?

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Thanks a million Abaddon__Ire, for slapping the piss out of me to the point which my head cleared, and, thereby, I have done it, thusly:

You're welcome. One more suggestion. Add a blank line between individual paragraphs. It may seem a tiny point, but it has a dramatic effect on the readability and comprehensibility of your text. Thus...

An Important Ramification of Spinoza's Dictum is Disproof of the Deity of Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ.

Spinoza's dictum is "determinatio negatio est", i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which, within seven paragraphs, it can be shown that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ, are not, cannot be, deities.

The type of determination being considered here is human determination to act, and, precisely what is being considered is how human action originates at its source, the source being human consciousness.

Several thinkers have employed, slightly modified, and based their systems of thought upon the Spinozistic dictum. Hegel modified it to "All determination is negation." Then, Sartre, using the Hegelian modification, based his entire magnum opus, "Being and Nothingness", 1943, upon the dictum. One can go as far as to say that every sentence in Sartre's eight hundred plus page work, entails Spinoza's dictum.

Hegel proclaimed the dictum to contain infinite riches; and, as part of the mining of those infinite riches, Sartre realized something which he based upon the dictum, and which precisely describes how human action actually originates by consciousness. What Sartre named the "double nihilation" is a theoretical structure which traces the particular movement of consciousness which constitutes a human act; being, of course a compound or double movement.

And so forth.

[negatio]

How does your argument deal with the fact that I would grow copious amounts of weed...if it weren't against the law?

Merely by demonstrating, and I can do so, in future, that the very notion "...against the law...'' is integral to what I have posited as "jurisprudential illusion", which illusion is going to be explained in the next segment of the paper I just now posted above. Since as a man you cannot in fact be determined in your acts and forbearances by a given factual states of affairs, and, since law is a given factual state of affairs, you cannot possibly act "against the law", or, "break the law".
You are an absolute, i.e., an absolute ontological freedom, which determines itself to action strictly on the basis of non-existants; you are the consciousness which posits, originates, law, that is, if you were a legislator, or a magistrate; and, that language of law, which materially exists as given language printed upon a page, and/or as vocalized
material sounds, enunciated by a legislator, magistrate, police or prosecutorial officer, in fact does not, cannot, determine your absolute original ontological freedom to do, or not do, a goddam fucking thing. No person on earth is actually determined to action or inaction by published language of law, we just, at this time in our history as a human race, mistakenly think it is the case that law is an efficacy among men, while all the while, in fact it is not. Is not the simple fact that millions of Americans are imprisoned in our country, more than anywhere on earth, tendent to indicate that law is not an efficacy among men. From my particular perspectival view jurisprudentially posited language of law is the grandest scam ever effected upon the face of our earth; out original human ontological structure is sufficient in itself to regulate our conduct, law cannot, because it is part of what continually wails and acts against what we are as human beings, which is a fucking uncomfortable way to run a civilization. All of these horrid shootings which now continually transpire across our country are committed by persons, who, in my opinion, are so radically outraged by something attendant upon the general suffocative torture that is our law, lacking the intellectual capacity to write his alienation out, like me, simply takes up a machine gun and
a

[The Grand Nudger]

It sounds like you're telling me that your argument can't deal with a brute fact.

Is not the simple fact that millions of Americans are imprisoned in our country, more than anywhere on earth, tendent to indicate that law is not an efficacy among men.

It tells us lots of things unrelated to the argument, but does tell us that the law is not uniformly and absolutely compelling. Not being uniformly and absolutely compelling is not the same thing as having no power to compel or moderate determination. It is simultaneously true that the law is not uniformly and absolutely compelling....and...that the law is the only thing compelling my decision in this regard.

I'm suggesting that you may have oversold your objection..and you might even have misattributed the incompetence central to your argument, though, it may not matter, as this also diminishes confidence in certain ontological claims about certain formulations of god.

[robvalue]

@Neg: It sounds like you’re conflating physical laws with man-made, punishment based laws.

[negatio]

Add a blank line between individual paragraphs.

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. I really did want it to be double spaced; am just so totally inept at using this site that it did not happen...I can now just barely quote and respond to members, and members are still expressing their amazement at my inability to do certain things they deem to be radically simple and normal, I just have no idea how to efficiently do all they think I should be able to do at this time.
You provided the dialectic which did ultimately produce a new realization, i.e., my rewrite. Then, meeting Emjay and Kernel Sohcahtoa, who are being wonderful to me, put me on the natural high whereby I sped right through the rewrite.

---

@Neg: It sounds like you’re conflating physical laws with man-made, punishment based laws.

No. When I say that language of law exists as material, as ink on a page, or vocal vibrations, I am clarifying the fact that language of law is a real, given, factual, material thing, because, I needed to show that man made jurisprudential law is a physical thing, and, given, factual, material things are not efficient to cause a man to act or to refrain from acting; for men act only on the basis of non-existant, objectively absent nothingnesses...

---

It sounds like you're telling me that your argument can't deal with a brute fact.

You've completely lost me here, I do not follow you, what brute fact ?

"...you might even have misattributed the incompetence central to your argument..."
You write excellently, however, at first glance your statements are not immediately apprehensible, I think that by ''misattributed'' you mean that I am mistaken in saying Christ is mistaken ! I'm certain I am not mistaken, if you could demonstrate that, such would constitute a heavy and enjoyable possibly productive dialectic between us. Feel free to attempt to destroy and exhibit any defeasibility you think you see in my discourse !