Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Great. And now you are doing it without difficulty. I may totally disagree with your arguments, but in the matter of practicalities of presentation, I would not send you astray.

Since we have achieved a little learning about how the forum works and so forth, could you say what platform and browser you are using? It would help to focus any further suggestions.

[Joods]

How about the OP follow the quoting system rules. I mean seriously? It isn't that hard to figure out how to properly quote someone.

[Abaddon_ire]

How about the OP follow the quoting system rules. I mean seriously? It isn't that hard to figure out how to properly quote someone.

It is if one has an unusual setup. I am pretty sure that our protagonist is on a unix based platform, with an unusual browser, and an odd offline editor for composing replies which are then copypasta-ed into exactly the wrong place in his replies. It took some patient effort and a few harsh comments to get there, but he is figuring it out.

My suspicion is that he does not see the friendly interface we are all accustomed to, but a source code viewer of some description. Thus by default, he sees tags directly.

Is that true? I have no idea until negatio actually tells me, but give the guy a break. He has shown willing. Slowly, I will grant, but still...

He has claimed difficulty understanding all the equals signs. That makes me think he sees something of this style of kidney...

Code:

[quote='negatio' pid='1804969' dateline='1535113238']

Those are easily explicable, but baffling if one has never seen such before.

For now, I am happy to give the guy a pass, provisionally. He claims to be 72. I have a close friend who is 75 to whom I have successfully explained all of this. 

Once again, it isn't rocket magic.

However, there are limits. In our last exchange, he effectively claimed to be unable to figure out how the "Enter" key works. That caused me pause. How could one not?

[The Grand Nudger]

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

The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.  The very moment it changes..I will be growing copious amounts of weed. Law is not completely efficacious when it comes to human determination, granted..but it's not entirely without efficacy, either.  You've built your argument around a general rule that doesn't hold.

"...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 suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

In plain language, and playing the part of an apologist;

"Didn't god know that law was an imperfect tool? That it would predictably fail a great portion of humanity - those for whom law does not drive their determination? Isn't this base incompetence?"
-Man's base incompetence. None are righteous, not even one. Yes, god did know that.

[Whateverist]

How about the OP follow the quoting system rules. I mean seriously? It isn't that hard to figure out how to properly quote someone.

I remember finding it very mysterious at first.  It wasn't until I learned I could see how formatting worked by looking at a quote after clicking on that last icon in the formatting window that looks like a paper with some writing on it with its upper right corner bent.  For what I just quoted from you, it looks like this (except that I've added a space after the first bracket to disable it):

[ quote='Joods' pid='1804997' dateline='1535117632']
How about the OP follow the quoting system rules. I mean seriously? It isn't that hard to figure out how to properly quote someone.
[ /quote]

Now if I wanted to quote you without replying directly I could just write [ quote=Joods] and end with [ /quote] .. though without the extra space after each first bracket, without which we'd get: 

and end with

[Abaddon_ire]

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

The brute fact that the law against growing weed here really is the only reason I'm not growing weed.  The very moment it changes..I will be growing copious amounts of weed.  Law is not completely efficacious when it comes to human determination, granted..but it's not entirely without efficacy, either. 

Right. I am firmly in the legalise camp on this. Do I want to use it? Not really, although I have in the past. Legalising it is not going to force me to do so, but it sure as hell wipes out the crooks. And by now, surely America realises that prohibition simply does not work, no? A whole century has passed since that was shown to be utterly useless.

"...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 suggesting that the inability of some people to moderate their actions in accordance with law might demonstrate their incompetence, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate incompetence on the part of law, or those who set it.
(human or divine).

Law is necessarily flawed and necessarily a long way behind the reality on the ground.

In plain language, and playing the part of an apologist;

"Didn't god know that law was an imperfect tool?  That it would predictably fail a great portion of humanity - those for whom law does not drive their determination?"
-It is man that is imperfect, and none are righteous, not even one.  Yes, god did know that.  He was very well aware of this.

Sure, "god" knew all that, killed everyone bar a family of eight and thus endorsed incest. How lovely. Hello, Oedipus.

Or Adam and Eve. According to the babble, Cain had it away and built a whole city for himself and had kids with whom? Watch the pretzel logic the apologists come up with for that.

The random birth sows that women are supposed to be remain nameless. This is because christianity places no value on the feminine. Women are merely chattel, possessions.

As a man, I find a strong, independent woman really attractive. Christianity would have me beat the very same for insubordination of my authority. That is just sick.

[negatio]

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.

Great. And now you are doing it without difficulty. I may totally disagree with your arguments, but in the matter of practicalities of presentation, I would not send you astray.

Since we have achieved a little learning about how the forum works and so forth, could you say what platform and browser you are using? It would help to focus any further suggestions.

could you say what platform and browser you are using?

Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge Browser

Moderator Notice
Removed accidental extra quote

[Abaddon_ire]

---

Great. And now you are doing it without difficulty. I may totally disagree with your arguments, but in the matter of practicalities of presentation, I would not send you astray.

Since we have achieved a little learning about how the forum works and so forth, could you say what platform and browser you are using? It would help to focus any further suggestions.

could you say what platform and browser you are using?

Windows 10 and Microsoft Edge Browser

Great. We can work with that. Unix based would be more challenging, though I could still do it.

Was I correct in my guess that you were confused by the "=" terms  in the quote tags? No foul, they are not obvious.

[negatio]

How about the OP follow the quoting system rules. I mean seriously? It isn't that hard to figure out how to properly quote someone.

It is if one has an unusual setup. I am pretty sure that our protagonist is on a unix based platform, with an unusual browser, and an odd offline editor for composing replies which are then copypasta-ed into exactly the wrong place in his replies. It took some patient effort and a few harsh comments to get there, but he is figuring it out.

My suspicion is that he does not see the friendly interface we are all accustomed to, but a source code viewer of some description. Thus by default, he sees tags directly.

Is that true? I have no idea until negatio actually tells me, but give the guy a break. He has shown willing. Slowly, I will grant, but still...

He has claimed difficulty understanding all the equals signs. That makes me think he sees something of this style of kidney...

Code:

[quote='negatio' pid='1804969' dateline='1535113238']

Those are easily explicable, but baffling if one has never seen such before.

For now, I am happy to give the guy a pass, provisionally. He claims to be 72. I have a close friend who is 75 to whom I have successfully explained all of this. 

Once again, it isn't rocket magic.

However, there are limits. In our last exchange, he effectively claimed to be unable to figure out how the "Enter" key works. That caused me pause. How could one not?

In our last exchange, he effectively claimed to be unable to figure out how the "Enter" key works. That caused me pause. How could one not? 

I am certain that I never told you I could not figure out how the enter key works !  You are mistaken.  Where are all these rules of procedure, that might help...

Moderator Notice
removed an extra quote and cleaned up this one

[The Grand Nudger]

I can suggest some shorthand.

@negatio

@khem

@Joods

@ire

Sometimes quote tags get garbled, especially with multiple quotes.