Ontological Disproof of God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'Argumentum ad hominem argument' is redundant. You're welcome.

Boru

[negatio]

'Argumentum ad hominem argument' is redundant.  You're welcome.

Boru

Yes indeed, sort of...it is an error Boru...but, looking at it, it is fucking cool...I like it. Duane

---

Don't mean to be negative here but the quoting was only a minor issue. The major issue is the communication barrier that exists for readers reading your OP. So looks like someone is gonna need to teach you effective communication next. Well done to whoever taught you quoting.

Thank you SaStrike.  I taught myself, finally, what you guys call quoting/replying, accidentally.  I was told by a member to click Reply and to find the bottom of the page below all the posts.  I did, and, when I got there my figure/ground perception did not see the bottom of the page in the way the member thought I would...where is the top of a tree...then, days later, when it sank in a bit, I tried again. I saw this thin little almost indistinguishable bottom margin, clicked there, a cursor appeared, and then I knew.
The OP is intelligible language, and there is no "communication barrier" standing between it and members. It a simple function of mistakenly submitting existential phenomenological language to a series of persons with no foundation in that language; precisely alike my situation within the forum, there is no communication barrier between me and the forum, there is only my lack of the foundation in computer language whereby I am not comprehending basic functions within the forum.  
It is a radical insult to say that someone needs to teach me effective communication !  I am a radically effective communicator, I just mistakenly presented a revolutionary ontological disproof of Deity, predicated upon nothing, to a forum without training in existential ontology. No worries SaStrike. A total rewrite of Part I of the OP now resides on page 19 of my thread as #181, which I wish I had known how to double space on this site, such a simple thing, and yet so unattainable for an ordinary rustic,who happens to appear here in the midst of a series of people quick to posit argumentum ad hominem argument and,presume themselves to be supermen,who merely need condescend to my marginal level, and heal me of the unfortunate communicativedystrophy which I have somehow developed along the way...Negatio. P.S. Could this site be just a tad user unfriendly for newbies !?

Correction SaStrike, it is #184 on page 19.

---

Precisely what is unsound about what I am maintaining; just to assert that it is not sound is not enough, you ought to explain your assertion.  Thank You. Negatio.

The assertion that law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action.

I don't have to be a professional philosopher or a neurobiologist to call massive bullshit on that one.

I want to grow weed.  I don't.  Why? 

......The Law™

Khemikal, the situation you and I now find ourselves in is beautiful, because we are at opposite extremes here.  You are an ordinary civilized human being for whom ''the law" is a powerful efficacy in your life, and,you think it is the reason that you will not grow weed.What I am saying is that it is not, it cannot be the letter of the law which is a powerful efficacy.  Actually, it is the jail; it is the fine; it is the confiscation of property; it is the punishment wherein efficacy resides, not in the law-language, which language is the means whereby you are condemned to punishment.
 We may continue with this  interchange, and, eventually I may be able to give you more  insight regarding why I am certain that, indeed, "...law is wholly undeterminative when it comes to human action."  You are being coerced and intimidated by all the apparatus of punishment whereby you could be subject to the destruction of your life.

[emjay]

Well done negatio, looks like you've got it For what it's worth I do understand how hard it is for you, or for anyone who is not computer literate, to not only do this stuff but also comprehend and retain it. It's the same with some of my family members, where it's completely understandable but still frustrating to teach because since they do not use computers enough for any rules of thumb or core principles to be learned, each time they use it it's like using it anew for the first time. But that's the same for anybody in a field they're not immersed in. Anyway, you seem to be getting immersed, so hopefully some of this stuff will stick long term and you'll start to learn context and rules of thumb to rely on. You've already done much better than some of my family... of similar age... would have done in the same space of time; who probably would not have got as far as joining (or wanting to join) a forum, let alone regularly posting on one, so well done

Yes, emjay, thank you !  I was thinking about you and I am really impressed with the facts that you are massively computer code literate and kind and energetic enough to write extensive explanation of =.
Further very impressive is, for a person who has never set foot in a college, you speak like a PhD physiologist regarding the function of cerebrocellular structures and brain neurochemical processes which theoretically underlie consciousness !  Damn.

No worries... I like explaining things but I perhaps suffer from similar problems as you in keeping those explanations concise. Ie I can be quite verbose too but the aim is always to be concise, but it's a hard aim to reach much of the time...so I have my fair share of walls of text on this site as well For instance in a forum game I play, Mafia, I once had the signal... er... 'honour' of creating 'the longest Mafia OP in history'... that is the post explaining the rules of the game. It read as much, or even more, like a legal contract, than your OP And it suffered from the same tl;dr problem for some people, and thus rules were still not understood. So exhaustiveness is no guarantee of understanding. And now I'm due to run another game soon and am struggling writing the OP... wanting it to be concise rather than exhaustive but having trouble working that out... working out the right level of density as it were, that only tells people what they need to know and no more. The rest they can just ask or trust the mod but it is hard to fight the urge to explain it all. Anyway, as to the equals post, I think that was pretty concise... cos I did leave stuff out that you don't need to know right now.

As to neuroscience, that, and psychology, is just my long term interest but I have no formal education in it (well, a little, in psychology). Basically I have a UK college education (college and university seem to be pretty much synonymous in the USA, but in the UK, college is much lower than university... so I have set foot in a college, but not a university ), mainly in computing.

[Angrboda]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are). To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores. Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God. I have two problems with this. I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith. I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion. So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature. We are conditioned by biology. I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse. That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition. So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong. Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will. Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be. According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms. Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic. So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well. I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made. I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school. As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic. I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right. So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

[negatio]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.
Jormungander, that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of the exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is.  However, you are way way ahead of my point of departure, and, of my most essential concern, when you leap to a consideration of bad faith.
I am engaged at the very bottommost, basic, fundamental operation of consciousness, which is the origination of an act...engaged in describing the modus operandi of originative mode which consciousness employs to make its acts, which, is the double nihilation. Believe it or not, this is basic, fundamental, simple, simplest of the several human ontological capacities.  Bad faith is a radically more complex and advanced consideration.  I do not have to go beyond description of my simplest ontological capacity, the origination of an act, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ could not have been Deity.
Jormungandr is being radically incisive and is correct regarding at least one aspect of my position; I have to retreat now, take the time to read her response; write-out my response on a piece of paper;---however, I am remaining at the bottommost point, i.e., at the nihilation which upsurges action...

[robvalue]

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

[emjay]

@negatio. At this point I think I'd just like to this thread... as in read but not contribute... for two reasons really; 1) I'm just about to start playing a mafia game either today or tomorrow, which will be taking up all my mental energy, and 2) I do have difficulty understanding things, I admit that, and when it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to get things conflated and end up talking and thinking at a different level of description than everyone else, similar to what you've just said about your argument compared to Jörmungandr's. So some people might be talking about plain logic, but where I'm hung up on a much lower level of description, say neurons. Anyway, so just saying I'm backing out now, and will just follow the progress of the argument with Jorm and Khemikal and others from the sidelines, until it hopefully makes sense at some point, and maybe come back in at some later point in the future. But nice to meet you, and well done getting the hang of quoting

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Well that's essentially what ontology is - to argue something into (or in this case, out of) existence.  To an ontological philosopher, it makes no difference as to whether God exists in any sense of what we think of as 'reality', just as long as a non-refutable argument can be constructed either for or against God (noting that 'non-refutable' doesn't necessarily mean 'true').

In that sense, God is very much like a unicorn.  Never mind that there aren't unicorns, or that there are no fossil unicorns, or that there isn't an ecological niche which can only be filled by unicorns.  As long as I can construct an argument that, on strictly logical grounds, cannot be refuted, unicorns must exist.

Boru

[negatio]

If I'm understanding the OP correctly, he's appealing to Sartre's conception that we are all radically free at any moment to make any choice whatsoever (via nihilation of what we currently are).  To Sartre, the reason that people follow social and other norms is what he termed bad faith, that they essentially lie to themselves about their essential freedom, and disown responsibility for behaving in ways that are consistent with social and legal mores.  Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.  I have two problems with this.  I disagree with Sartre in ultimate conclusions about the nature of bad faith.  I don't think we are radically free in the sense he maintains because we are embodied in a biological form, thus there is a dependency between consciousness and our needs which is not simply an illusion.  So bad faith is transformed into an appropriate response to our carnal nature.  We are conditioned by biology.  I don't find either that dependency or our acting consonant with it to be in any sense bad or inauthentic, but rather the reverse.  That is, when we pretend we are radically free, we are acting in bad faith with respect to our actual condition.  So Sartre, I think, simply is wrong.  Second, theists and theology actually embrace a doctrine of radical freedom in positing the existence of libertarian free will.  Given that theologists historically have considered such freedom compatible with their beliefs, and even necessary according to some, would seem to suggest that this isn't really the problem the OP is making it out to be.  According to traditional theology, people utilize their freedom in accordance with facts and reason to arrive at behaviors, including abiding by laws and social norms.  Because they see this freedom as being based on an ability to respond to the facts of the world in a manner that is consistent with self interest, they do not view doing so as either bad or inauthentic.  So they fundamentally disagree with Sartre about the nature of human consciousness and human will as well.  I suppose one can insist that Sartre is right and they are wrong, but that's a different argument than the one that has been made.  I liked Sartre a lot when I was in high school.  As I grew older, I became disenchanted with his essentially moral take on radical freedom, and began to see that as problematic.  I still hold that, at minimum, there are things that Sartre's view simply does not take into account, even though it gets many things right.  So I don't find arguments based on Sartre's views in this area persuasive, if indeed that is what the OP is saying.

Anyway, that's my best guess about what the OP is trying to say, as well as my objections to that, if that indeed is his argument.

Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.
Jormungander, that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of the exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is.  However, you are way way ahead of my point of departure, and, of my most essential concern, when you leap to a consideration of bad faith.
I am engaged at the very bottommost, basic, fundamental operation of consciousness, which is the origination of an act...engaged in describing the modus operandi of originative mode which consciousness employs to make its acts, which, is the double nihilation. Believe it or not, this is basic, fundamental, simple, simplest of the several human ontological capacities.  Bad faith is a radically more complex and advanced consideration.  I do not have to go beyond description of my simplest ontological capacity, the origination of an act, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ could not have been Deity.
Jormungandr is being radically incisive and is correct regarding at least one aspect of my position; I have to retreat now, take the time to read her response; write-out my response on a piece of paper;---however, I am remaining at the bottommost point, i.e., at the nihilation which upsurges action...

First I need to correct the first sentence of my first response, to read. "J. that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is."
This second response runs thus:  At first glance I clearly see J. leaping extensively way ahead, into macrocosmic considerations regarding the sociospheric exercise of bad faith; wherein she exhibits some lack of fully correctly differentiating between freedom, and, facticity; and, I see J. inadvertently employing an argument by extension, wherein she puts me way out on the limb of bad faith, whereupon I am not perched, and saws it off ! (The core consideration running
 through the entire OP is the simple double nihilation, and how God and inauthoritative jurisprudential authorities fail to understand that aspect of their ontological structure, and therefore fall into radical error.  They cannot be in bad faith in regard to their conduct, because their error is not intentional, rather, it is merely ignorance of the  pattern of their own ontological structure.)
I may respond again to the very impressive reply, pointing to what I think I saw as an overall contradiction. J. does write in the manner wherein one employs 'this', which makes for extreme difficulty in immediately identifying precisely what she is saying.  Thanks a million Jormungander, you are dynamite. Negatio.

---

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Perhaps so Robvalue,  Nonetheless, entire civilizations going back for thousands of years, right up to the present, have predicated and predicate their civilization upon the mores of Yahweh/Jehovah, and, Jesus Christ.  Biblical scripture is the foundation of billions of lives, right now; I have been living in Amish country for seven years now, and, you should see how dead seriously scripture is taken, thoroughly underlying every aspect of person's lives.  I would not dismiss it as lightly as you !  Ultimately it is indifferent whether or not the characters were actual, what has mattered throughout history is how the personalities have seriously influenced our historicity.  Negatio.

---

@negatio. At this point I think I'd just like to this thread... as in read but not contribute... for two reasons really; 1) I'm just about to start playing a mafia game either today or tomorrow, which will be taking up all my mental energy, and 2) I do have difficulty understanding things, I admit that, and when it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to get things conflated and end up talking and thinking at a different level of description than everyone else, similar to what you've just said about your argument compared to Jörmungandr's. So some people might be talking about plain logic, but where I'm hung up on a much lower level of description, say neurons. Anyway, so just saying I'm backing out now, and will just follow the progress of the argument with Jorm and Khemikal and others from the sidelines, until it hopefully makes sense at some point, and maybe come back in at some later point in the future. But nice to meet you, and well done getting the hang of quoting

Yea, cool emjay. The same level differences came up in a response I made to you last night ,i.e., as the differences in level between brain cells/neurons and consciousness...I had fun saying that perhaps cellular determinist structures underlie free consciousness...Negatio.

[negatio]

Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.
Jormungander, that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of the exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is.  However, you are way way ahead of my point of departure, and, of my most essential concern, when you leap to a consideration of bad faith.
I am engaged at the very bottommost, basic, fundamental operation of consciousness, which is the origination of an act...engaged in describing the modus operandi of originative mode which consciousness employs to make its acts, which, is the double nihilation. Believe it or not, this is basic, fundamental, simple, simplest of the several human ontological capacities.  Bad faith is a radically more complex and advanced consideration.  I do not have to go beyond description of my simplest ontological capacity, the origination of an act, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ could not have been Deity.
Jormungandr is being radically incisive and is correct regarding at least one aspect of my position; I have to retreat now, take the time to read her response; write-out my response on a piece of paper;---however, I am remaining at the bottommost point, i.e., at the nihilation which upsurges action...

First I need to correct the first sentence of my first response, to read. "J. that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is."
This second response runs thus:  At first glance I clearly see J. leaping extensively way ahead, into macrocosmic considerations regarding the sociospheric exercise of  bad faith; wherein she exhibits some lack of fully correctly differentiating between freedom, and, facticity; and, I see J. inadvertently employing an argument by extension, wherein she puts me way out the limb of bad faith, whereupon I am not perched, and saws it off ! (The core consideration running through the entire OP is the simple double nihilation, and how God and inauthoritative jurisprudential authorities fail to understand that aspect of their ontological structure, and therefore fall into radical error.  They cannot be in bad faith in regard to their conduct, because their error is not intentional, rather, it is merely ignorance of the  pattern of their own ontological structure.)
I may respond again to the very impressive reply, pointing to what I think I saw as an overall contradiction. J. does write in the manner wherein one employs 'this', which makes for extreme difficulty in immediately identifying precisely what she is saying.  Thanks a million Jormungander, you are dynamite. Negatio.

---

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Perhaps so Robvalue,  Nonetheless, entire civilizations going back for thousands of years, right up to the present, have predicated and predicate their civilization upon the mores of Yahweh/Jehovah, and, Jesus Christ.  Biblical scripture is the foundation of billions of lives, right now; I have been living in Amish country for seven years now, and, you should see how dead seriously scripture is taken, thoroughly underlying every aspect of person's lives.  I would not dismiss it as lightly as you !  Ultimately it is indifferent whether or not the characters were actual, what has mattered throughout history is how the personalities have seriously influenced our historicity.  Negatio.

---

@negatio. At this point I think I'd just like to this thread... as in read but not contribute... for two reasons really; 1) I'm just about to start playing a mafia game either today or tomorrow, which will be taking up all my mental energy, and 2) I do have difficulty understanding things, I admit that, and when it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to get things conflated and end up talking and thinking at a different level of description than everyone else, similar to what you've just said about your argument compared to Jörmungandr's. So some people might be talking about plain logic, but where I'm hung up on a much lower level of description, say neurons. Anyway, so just saying I'm backing out now, and will just follow the progress of the argument with Jorm and Khemikal and others from the sidelines, until it hopefully makes sense at some point, and maybe come back in at some later point in the future. But nice to meet you, and well done getting the hang of quoting

Yea, cool emjay. The same level differences came up in a response I made to you last night ,i.e., as the differences in level between brain cells/neurons and consciousness...I had fun saying that perhaps cellular determinist structures underlie free consciousness...Negatio.

On second thought emjay, Perhaps we should be careful not to presuppose that consciousness is not smaller than human cells, yes, of course consciousness viably underlies cells, inhabits cells, directs cells; it must be...I cannot imagine a different consciousness for my sapientality and, for each of billions of cells...perhaps I have billions of consciousnesses, one for each cell !?

---

Apparently the OP feels that by prescribing laws to man, God is showing that he fundamentally misunderstands man's essential nature, and because He/It is mistaken, He/It cannot be God.
Jormungander, that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of the exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is.  However, you are way way ahead of my point of departure, and, of my most essential concern, when you leap to a consideration of bad faith.
I am engaged at the very bottommost, basic, fundamental operation of consciousness, which is the origination of an act...engaged in describing the modus operandi of originative mode which consciousness employs to make its acts, which, is the double nihilation. Believe it or not, this is basic, fundamental, simple, simplest of the several human ontological capacities.  Bad faith is a radically more complex and advanced consideration.  I do not have to go beyond description of my simplest ontological capacity, the origination of an act, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ could not have been Deity.
Jormungandr is being radically incisive and is correct regarding at least one aspect of my position; I have to retreat now, take the time to read her response; write-out my response on a piece of paper;---however, I am remaining at the bottommost point, i.e., at the nihilation which upsurges action...

First I need to correct the first sentence of my first response, to read. "J. that is a spot-on absolutely correct reading of exactly what the ur-grund of my logic is."
This second response runs thus:  At first glance I clearly see J. leaping extensively way ahead, into macrocosmic considerations regarding the sociospheric exercise of bad faith; wherein she exhibits some lack of fully correctly differentiating between freedom, and, facticity; and, I see J. inadvertently employing an argument by extension, wherein she puts me way out the bad faith limb whereupon I am not perched, and saws it off ! (The core consideration running through the entire OP is the simple double nihilation, and how God and inauthoritative jurisprudential authorities fail to understand that aspect of their ontological structure, and therefore fall into radical error.  They cannot be in bad faith in regard to their conduct, because their error is not intentional, rather, it is merely ignorance of the  pattern of their own ontological structure.)
I may respond again to the very impressive reply, pointing to what I think I saw as an overall contradiction. J. does write in the manner wherein one employs 'this', which makes for extreme difficulty in immediately identifying precisely what she is saying.  Thanks a million Jormungander, you are dynamite. Negatio.

---

This seems to me to be a massive amount of effort to try to disprove what amount to literary characters which are no more convincing than Darth Vader to begin with. In fact, the latter requires a lot less assumptions to consider plausible.

If instead we're talking about some generic "creator", then I don't think such a thing is (yet) open to being disproven; certainly not through logical argumentation, anyway.

Perhaps so Robvalue,  Nonetheless, entire civilizations going back for thousands of years, right up to the present, have predicated and predicate their civilization upon the mores of Yahweh/Jehovah, and, Jesus Christ.  Biblical scripture is the foundation of billions of lives, right now; I have been living in Amish country for seven years now, and, you should see how dead seriously scripture is taken, thoroughly underlying every aspect of person's lives.  I would not dismiss it as lightly as you !  Ultimately it is indifferent whether or not the characters were actual, what has mattered throughout history is how the personalities have seriously influenced our historicity.  Negatio.

---

@negatio. At this point I think I'd just like to this thread... as in read but not contribute... for two reasons really; 1) I'm just about to start playing a mafia game either today or tomorrow, which will be taking up all my mental energy, and 2) I do have difficulty understanding things, I admit that, and when it comes to these sorts of things, I tend to get things conflated and end up talking and thinking at a different level of description than everyone else, similar to what you've just said about your argument compared to Jörmungandr's. So some people might be talking about plain logic, but where I'm hung up on a much lower level of description, say neurons. Anyway, so just saying I'm backing out now, and will just follow the progress of the argument with Jorm and Khemikal and others from the sidelines, until it hopefully makes sense at some point, and maybe come back in at some later point in the future. But nice to meet you, and well done getting the hang of quoting

Yea, cool emjay. The same level differences came up in a response I made to you last night ,i.e., as the differences in level between brain cells/neurons and consciousness...I had fun saying that perhaps cellular determinist structures underlie free consciousness...Negatio.