Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

See that above?

You put...

Code:

[quote='negatio' pid='1806022' dateline='1535325803']
[quote='\''Spinoza"']
determination is negation
[/quote]

[/quote]

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

[negatio]

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

mh.brewer
'Notion'; 'Reality'; "Concept';  Mental'; Lawxxanalytic philosophers question these human constructs ad infinitum.  Nonetheless, we still employ these suspect terms.  The point is that human beings have thought, for thousands of years, that Yahweh sent Moses down to the children of Israel with stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of God, bearing law whereby Yahweh had the notion that he could determine these children in their conduct ; since then, (be it fiction, or, whatever) men have, with tremendous travail, employed "law"; now, I am here pursuing a theoretical destruction of the notion "law", I, we, have to use some semiotic unit to say that Yahweh conceived "law".  Precisely brewer, "law", in a very vigorous sense, does not in fact exist as a Platonic form type of being, and so on and so on; however there is a very real sense in which "law" is here, within our sociosphere, and we have reached the point where we so radically over-apply the theoretical construct that is "law", that "law" is become destructive of human beings who quit their businesses because law has required so  much of them that they cannot function...and on and on and on...there are examples of our having reached the point in our civilization, where law is a maladaptive means to attaining civilization....Thank you mh.brewer. Negaato.

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

See that above?

You put...

Code:

[quote='negatio' pid='1806022' dateline='1535325803']

[/quote]

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determinatio negatio est

---

See that above?

You put...

Code:

[quote='negatio' pid='1806022' dateline='1535325803']

[/quote]

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determination is negation

---

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determinatio negatio est

---

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determination is negation

Spinoza's dictum is determination negation est, i.e. determination is negation, and, is the central concept by which

---

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determinatio negatio est

---

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determination is negation

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

Spinoza's dictum is determination negation est, i.e. determination is negation, and, is the central concept by which

Spinoza's dictum is "determination is negation'', i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which it is

---

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determinatio negatio est

---

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determination is negation

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

Spinoza's dictum is determination negation est, i.e. determination is negation, and, is the central concept by which

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

---

Spinoza's dictum is "determination is negation'', i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which it is

This site disallows me to write latin, which is the language Spinoza wrote in !

---

Businesses fail for many reasons

Indeed, and, recently it is so prevalent in California that the suffocative requirements of legislated "law" has so mortally stricken businesses, that they are leaving the state, their free project as American citizens is being obviated by law, instead of being edified by law.

---

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

Man employed law(s) addressing human conduct prior to Yahweh. Using Yahweh as the source or motive for law is a fallacy. 

What is your solution to this "maladaptive law" civilization that has been constructed?

Businesses fail for many reasons. A google search indicates that failing to meet legal requirements is a minor cause.

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determinatio negatio est

---

See that above?

You put...

The extraneous spaces, single quotes and slash  within the "quote" tag made it fail.

Computers are VERY strict about things like that.

determination is negation

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

Spinoza's dictum is determination negation est, i.e. determination is negation, and, is the central concept by which

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

---

Spinoza's dictum is "determination is negation'', i.e., "determination is negation", and, is the central concept by which it is

---

See Parts II and III of the OP.

---

---

---

---

This site disallows me to write latin, which is the language Spinoza wrote in !

---

Businesses fail for many reasons

Indeed, and, recently it is so prevalent in California that the suffocative requirements of legislated "law" has so mortally stricken businesses, that they are leaving the state, their free project as American citizens is being obviated by law, instead of being edified by law.

The way using this BB code presents my writing is to make it appear as if Spinoza wrote what, in fact, I wrote...SPINOZA WROTE

[Abaddon_ire]

Jesus, it's groundhog day.

[brewer]

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

[negatio]

Your objection doesn't appear to be wholly true

I am not writing regarding the fact that it may have been a mistake to precipitate a state of affairs wherein God felt obliged to drown everyone; I am writing to point out that this so called God's original error was to think that he could possible supervise man via his written language of law, because, man does not originate actions on the basis of something like written law, and, the fact that God exhibited failure to know that man could not successfully be supervised by law, can only mean that God is not in fact Deity. Deity being a higher being than the very next being in the hierarchy, i.e., God; Man; Khemikal;

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not writing regarding the fact that it may have been a mistake to precipitate a state of affairs wherein God felt obliged to drown everyone;

Not for nothing, but that was even dumber than coming up with laws - and it didn't even work ,lol.

I am writing to point out that this so called God's original error was to think that he could possible supervise man via his written language of law, because, man does not originate actions on  the basis of something like written law, and, the fact that God exhibited failure to know that man could not successfully be supervised by law, can only mean that God is not in fact Deity.  Deity being a higher being than the very next being in the hierarchy, i.e., God; Man; Khemikal;

Again, laying aside that at least some men can be "supervised" by some law...god did know that..if you ask magic book.

[robvalue]

Remember that you can select "preview post", to view how your reply is going to look. This avoids posting something in a messed-up state, giving you the chance to correct it first. (It keeps everything you've typed ready to edit, or to submit if you are happy with the results.)

[negatio]

Your objection doesn't appear to be wholly true, but it wouldn't matter if it were..since the judeo christian god was aware that the law would not be absolutely compelling in the first place.  The narrative of vicarious redemption practically revolves around the alleged fact that none of us were capable of being righteous before the law.  

That's a pretty tough spot for an argument to be in..when there's a question as to whether or not it's sound..... or...... you can grant the assertion and it still won't lead to the stated conclusion.

Khemikal  I am going to use you as a guinea pig to see if I am getting code for quoting book references, you are the only one who appears to be online at the moment..

determinatio negatio est

---

---

---

J.  Attacking belief in God is not my goal. My goal is to demonstrate, via explaining what a certain school of philosophy deems to be the true modus operandi of human origination of an act, that the gods I named are not Deity, because they clearly do not understand how their putative creation, man, ticks when it comes to originating acts.

I was pointing out two distinct views, mine, and that of traditional theology, both of which contradict Sartre.  If my view is correct, then enough said.  However, even if my view is not correct, the view you are challenging - that of traditional theology - likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.  I was not claiming that both views are simultaneously correct, so there is no contradiction.  For what it's worth, I don't agree with traditional theology, but if attacking the belief in God is your goal, your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

---

your argument needs to be sufficient to persuade people holding to such beliefs.  Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I do not want to prove anything, in person, to believers.  After a long conversation with a wonderful Amish man, I subsequently apologized to him for doing such a totally fucking rude asshole thing as presenting, directly in his wonderful face, an ontological disproof of God.  I simply wont to set forward, in writing, a viable, unquestionable, philosophical theory of the absence of Deity in the character of Jesus Christ, because I am sick of hearing how I should sign my entire life over to this Christ dude, and let him run my fucking life, for the past seventy years now !  I am an absolute ontological freedom in possession of a reflective understanding of my absolute ontological freedom, I want to attempt to run my own life, not drop that life and become some fuck's underling ! ; because he is God, and died for my fucking sins !

---

likely can withstand the challenge for reasons of its own.

nothing could withstand my destruction, not challenge, its too fucking true because it derives right out of the personal ontological structure of everyone, which is an indubitable structure, meaning the double nihilation.

---

contradict Sartrehow on earth would you do a theoretical destruction of omins determinatio est negatio !?

Remember that you can select "preview post", to view how your reply is going to look. This avoids posting something in a messed-up state, giving you the chance to correct it first. (It keeps everything you've typed ready to edit, or to submit if you are happy with the results.)

Precisely, robvalue, I did that once, and, you are correct, I am sure, hoping the goddamn computer robot, who thinks he is smarter than I, will, ultimately let me use my language in my way.  I usually check my writing as close as possible even when tired, and, when I realized this robot dude was wreaking havoc, and making me look stupid I got all shook-up, and, your advice is the solution ! Thanks a million. Negatio.

[negatio]

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

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

---

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

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

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

An Important

---

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

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

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

An Important

I swear, the first attempt lacked wrote at the end of my name, then, on the second try, which totally failed, I saw what I wanted to accomplish appearing correctly.  Now, what I want to do is write out the very last sentence of Part I, and, then proceed to the first sentence of Part II, where a theoretical destruction of the fundamental mistaken presupposition employed by modern jurisprudence, begins.  So, now, to attempt to present the last sentence per BB code:

 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 unintelligibility practiced by inauthentic diety, which avenue leads us to  demonstrating, likewise, the ontological unintelligibility of extant American jurisprudence, thus:

---

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

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

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

An Important

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

---

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

I swear, the first attempt lacked wrote at the end of my name, then, on the second try, which totally failed, I saw what I wanted to accomplish appearing correctly.  Now, what I want to do is write out the very last sentence of Part I, and, then proceed to the first sentence of Part II, where a theoretical destruction of the fundamental mistaken presupposition employed by modern jurisprudence, begins.  So, now, to attempt to present the last sentence per BB code:

 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 unintelligibility practiced by inauthentic diety, which avenue leads us to  demonstrating, likewise, the ontological unintelligibility of extant American jurisprudence, thus:

 1.   A profound error is transpiring within American jurisprudence, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna check out for awhile. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

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

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

An Important

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

---

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

I swear, the first attempt lacked wrote at the end of my name, then, on the second try, which totally failed, I saw what I wanted to accomplish appearing correctly.  Now, what I want to do is write out the very last sentence of Part I, and, then proceed to the first sentence of Part II, where a theoretical destruction of the fundamental mistaken presupposition employed by modern jurisprudence, begins.  So, now, to attempt to present the last sentence per BB code:

 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 unintelligibility practiced by inauthentic diety, which avenue leads us to  demonstrating, likewise, the ontological unintelligibility of extant American jurisprudence, thus:

---

mh.brewer I am totteringly/clumsily ready to begin writing what I wish to address to this forum,  in the manner which forum members deem exhibits proper respect, by attempting to set forward a title and three sentences via BB code; sending you one at a time, first the title:

---

Now, why doesn't it say WROTE after DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN ?!  I want to have it look thus:
DUANE CLINTON MEEHAN  WROTE 
An Important Ramification of ….                                                        I'll try once again:

---

I swear, the first attempt lacked wrote at the end of my name, then, on the second try, which totally failed, I saw what I wanted to accomplish appearing correctly.  Now, what I want to do is write out the very last sentence of Part I, and, then proceed to the first sentence of Part II, where a theoretical destruction of the fundamental mistaken presupposition employed by modern jurisprudence, begins.  So, now, to attempt to present the last sentence per BB code:

 1.   A profound error is transpiring within American jurisprudence, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.

I swear for me this is like having one's teeth pulled without a nerve blocking injection ! Now, on this last attempt, which did set forth the first sentence of Part II, it does not, on the screen I see now, have Wrote at the end of my proper name … Anyway, the rewritten version of Part I of the OP, which members found so radically outrageous, appears on my thread at page 19 #184, where I have written an elegant kindergarten version of the OP, fortunately, both versions will hunt; one for Newbies and one for Seniors in the language of existential phenomenological ontology !

[negatio]

I would pay to see negatio attempt to order food at a drive-thru.

---

Also, for all of negatio's attempts to dazzle us with vocabulary, most of it is simply riddled with too many flourishes and odd turns of phrase ("while, all the while," using "ilk" without an established reference, etc.).  Good writing is elegant.  I mean, take the following:

Since age thirteen I have spent sixty years reading philosophical writing that takes years and years to understand, and, I thought others relished the same process of encountering a written text which is seemingly unintelligible, and, after tremendous effort, coming to find that it is an absolutely beautiful ilk of thought poetry which transforms you being

A quick rewrite would be:

Since age thirteen I have spent sixty years reading philosophy that takes many years to understand, let alone master.  I thought others relished the same process of encountering text which is seemingly unintelligible at first, but, after tremendous effort, finding that it is actually beautiful thought poetry which transforms your very being

Small changes, but the removal of cruft makes it easier to read.  Like I implied before, there's a difference between style and cramming in as many words as you know.

Assuming you're not a troll (of which I'm absolutely not convinced), learn to edit yourself and accept that in a attempt to transmit ideas, any language that distracts from that transmission should be omitted.  More isn't always better, and requests for clarification aren't an indication of a simple mind.  But, my degree is in communication, so what do I know?

To KevinM1s contention:    attempts to dazzle us with vocabulary
I reply : I am sincerely being modest when I merely want to say that it is impossible to show off one's vocabulary when one's vocabulary is infinite. I am what I am not and am not what I am. Thanks KevinM1. Negatio.