Ontological Disproof of God

[KevinM1]

A couple things:

1. When you quote someone in a post, the forum software alerts the person you've quoted
2. You asked me to leave you alone, and I have. I expect the same courtesy in return

[negatio]

A couple things:

1. When you quote someone in a post, the forum software alerts the person you've quoted
2. You asked me to leave you alone, and I have.  I expect the same courtesy in return

I was intending to kiss and make-up; letting bygones be bygones.  I think you were saying my sentence was elegant, while, at the same time, insulting me by acting as if you know better than I how to express my thoughts, even editing my thoughts;--- if I can forgive you for that, you may, I hope, be able to forgive me...Duane.

[negatio]

One need not ontologically disprove something for which there is no credible evidence.

Even given that historians and archeologists cannot obtain actual historical evidence that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ actually existed, the thing is, that millions upon millions of human beings have BELIEVED in these alleged deities for several thousand years now; and that is enough to warrant disproving that something for which there is no credible evidence, upon purely theoretical grounds. Thank you Astreja. Negatio.

---

You lost me at ontological.

Yes, indeed, Iwnkyaaimi, that is an ongoing and serious problem for me in  my discussions with friends,  whom I have known for decades, when we interact over my theories, which high-falutin theoretical language makes such constant reference to 'ontological', in my intently repetitious fashion, on and on, over and over again.
''onto'' simply means being; and, ''-ology" merely means ''the study of'', thus, the study of being, the being being studied is the human being, thus ''ontology'' , the study of human being. Thank You Iwnkyaaimi !  Negatio.

---

Frog pants fly unstable in laundry math egregiousness = no god.

Thus, via this formula, you were disparagingly equating  my writing to an unintelligible ensemble of apparently disconnected terms, adding-up to a ridiculous disproof of God, when, in fact, everything which is set-forth via my particularly strangely appearing language. is nothing more than the employment of theoretical constructs which, in the instance of Spinoza's dictum/construct, has been with us since the seventeenth century, without falling to theoretical destruction by other thinkers, for four hundred years !  And, the Sartreian theoretical stuff actually won Sartre the Nobel prize in 1960, and, he was so radically a rebel, he absolutely refused the Nobel prize !  Can you imagine that !  Thank you mh.brewer; P.S., this response has been so long in coming, because I use to have no idea how to properly respond, and, I was at a total loss to understand your formula, and I was under constant attack from a multitude of members, and, Mathilda advised me that it appeared that I was on the verge of being formally accused of being a troll, I immediately quit this forum, and, then, Bennyboy accosted me delightfully, so I re-engaged the forum, and,  had the piss beat out of my by a Saintly member, who was so horrid to me he radically pissed me off, and, then, when I calmed down, and we calmed down, I finally attained the bare minimum of insight into how to begin to employ BB code, and, to begin to respond in accordance with acceptable procedure, and, you, yourself had presented me with such a horrid accusation wherein drugs were , according to you, without question, accountable for my radically idiosyncratic language, that, until I calmed-down, and, had the tools for interaction, I could do nothing but incur the ongoing disdain of other members, and, then, you started positing a radically reasonable and ongoing rapid-fire series of questions, which, after a while, won my respect. Now, I post directly to you as I employ the site to experiment with properly quoting authors, and, consequently, I now have hear absolutely nothing from you, perhaps, thereby, I totally alienated you this morning. Negatio.

---

Dude, put your cursor below all the existing text when making a reply. It will solve the problem you are having with your posts.

Yea, but you didn't say that I then had to click, so, I remained in ignorance...

[negatio]

AegonIf you cannot put the complexities of something you understand into simpler terms for others, then you do not really understand it.

No, I understood the theoretical instruments I was using, and, nonetheless, could not reduce my thinking, which transpired in language unintelligible to ordinary persons, to language readily comprehensible by others, i.e. not  until I had arrived here on this forum, and, then, had both the piss totally kicked out of me, and, simultaneously, received loving and uplifting support, that. I did,consequently, rapidly plough through writing a more readily comprehensible version of the OP, which now appears on page 19 #184 of this thread.  Thanks a million Aegon. My apologies for never responding...you alienated me... Negatio.

[negatio]

What are you on about? One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

What I am "on about'' is examining the unexamined presupposition presumed, historically, by ''god-myth", that deems thexmeans to obviating man's bent to kill; steal; give false testimony against one's neighbor; etc., to be to authoritatively publish a language of law, which language of law is set-forth, unreflectively, absent regard-for the actual way in which men, actually upsurge their acts, for the sake of, by law, obviating killing; stealing; lying; etc.; while, nonetheless, men do not, and, cannot quit doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc.; simply because some Deity; some Legislature; some magistrate posits "law" against doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc., i.e., that men do not, cannot, originate their acts via "law", and, I am on about describing how human persons actually do originate their acts/actions, knowing, that, perhaps, if, and, when, we human persons, interacting within our sociosphere, actually obtain knowledge of how human action actually, ontologically, originates, we will not be able to realize that we do have, all along, the means to obviate killing; stealing; lying; etc., and, that that means is already woven into the structure of our human ontological freedom, but, not yet being reflectively ontologically free, we are unable to employ the ontological means of obviating killing; stealing; lying; enslaving others...Sincerely, Negatio.
,

[Astreja]

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

What I am "on about'' is examining the unexamined presupposition presumed, historically, by ''god-myth", that deems thexmeans to obviating man's bent to kill; steal; give false testimony against one's neighbor; etc., to be to authoritatively publish a language of law, which language of law is set-forth, unreflectively, absent regard-for the actual way in which men, actually upsurge their acts, for the sake of, by law, obviating killing; stealing; lying; etc.; while, nonetheless, men do not, and, cannot quit doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc.; simply because some Deity; some Legislature; some magistrate posits "law" against doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc., i.e., that men do not, cannot, originate their acts via "law", and, I am on about describing how human persons actually do originate their acts/actions, knowing, that, perhaps, if, and, when, we human persons, interacting within our sociosphere, actually obtain knowledge of how human action actually, ontologically, originates, we will not be able to realize that we do have, all along, the means to obviate killing; stealing; lying; etc., and, that that means is already woven into the structure of our human ontological freedom, but, not yet being reflectively ontologically free, we are unable to employ the ontological means of obviating killing; stealing; lying; enslaving others...Sincerely, Negatio.

Well, good luck with that.  Carry on.

[negatio]

If you don't think that we can understand your ideas, then why go to the trouble of expounding them at all?  

When I originally thought that perhaps an Atheist/Agnostic Forum seemed viably a place to post my OP, I was not at all thinking about who might be there, to me, it was just generically the world to which I was posting; I did not stop to think about the particular individual persons who constituted the forum, and, then, I found myself crowned with thorns, being thrown into motion moved by member hatred of perceived trolls, on my way to crucifixion, when, fortunately Mathilda stepped-in to educate me about perceived trolling...I am going to the trouble of attempting to expound my ideas because I, like everyone else, seek the approbation of others...Negatio.

---

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

What I am "on about'' is examining the unexamined presupposition presumed, historically, by ''god-myth", that deems thexmeans to obviating man's bent to kill; steal; give false testimony against one's neighbor; etc., to be to authoritatively publish a language of law, which language of law is set-forth, unreflectively, absent regard-for the actual way in which men, actually upsurge their acts, for the sake of, by law, obviating killing; stealing; lying; etc.; while, nonetheless, men do not, and, cannot quit doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc.; simply because some Deity; some Legislature; some magistrate posits "law" against doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc., i.e., that men do not, cannot, originate their acts via "law", and, I am on about describing how human persons actually do originate their acts/actions, knowing, that, perhaps, if, and, when, we human persons, interacting within our sociosphere, actually obtain knowledge of how human action actually, ontologically, originates, we will not be able to realize that we do have, all along, the means to obviate killing; stealing; lying; etc., and, that that means is already woven into the structure of our human ontological freedom, but, not yet being reflectively ontologically free, we are unable to employ the ontological means of obviating killing; stealing; lying; enslaving others...Sincerely, Negatio.

Well, good luck with that.  Carry on.

Thank you so much Astreja, you come-off-as-so-radically skeptical that it is frightening; nonetheless, it is the sort of antithetical response to my putative malarkey, that elicitsxxxxclear-thinking, soaring responses, from me, as a resultant of the dialectic which thinkers like you, are able to bring, to pose.
 
 Thank You, Princess. Negatio.

[Cod]

You lost me at ontological.

Yes, indeed, Iwnkyaaimi, that is an ongoing and serious problem for me in  my discussions with friends,  whom I have known for decades, when we interact over my theories, which high-falutin theoretical language makes such constant reference to 'ontological', in my intently repetitious fashion, on and on, over and over again.
''onto'' simply means being; and, ''-ology" merely means ''the study of'', thus, the study of being, the being being studied is the human being, thus ''ontology'' , the study of human being. Thank You Iwnkyaaimi !  Negatio.

Ah, the consequences of erudite vernacular utilised irrespective of necessity.

[negatio]

Iwnkyaami, a beautifully phrased sentence, however when one is setting-forth a theoretical position in philosophy, one is under the necessity of owning theoretical intelligibility in one's position. I am under the necessity of employing the language of existential phenomenological ontology because, said language carries the intension of the theoretical intelligibility contained within said language, the theoretical intelligibility per se of the language of existential ontology constitutes the theoretical instruments of existential ontology as being theoretically indefeasible, and, in turn lends theoretical indefeasibility to my particular position. I am not employing the abstruse language of existential ontology in order to show off how smart I am, I am using it to achieve and preserve theoretical and ontological intelligibility in my own philosophical position as enunciated by the OP.
When I said the OP was constructed intelligibly enough to last for ages, I meant that the OP is predicated upon a theoretical instrumentation that cannot be demonstrated, by other thinkers, to be theoretically unintelligible, and therefore, my theoretical position is not at all subject to being destroyed by other thinkers. The OP is under the necessity of using the language of indefeasible theoretical constructs, in order itself to be indefeasible at the theoretical level. I have no choice in the matter ! I was under the necessity to have and maintain both theoretical and ontological intelligibility in my writing, else I would be eaten alive and trampled under foot by other ideaologists/thinkers. Philosophy is polemic, thus, if I am to be and remain immune from being destroyed by the polemics of others, I of radical necessity, must use indefeasible, bullet proof, established, theoretical instruments to set forth my position, which must, of necessity be enunciated in abstruse language which is indefeasible on the theoretical plane. Thank you Iwnkyaaimi (a name which is pure poetry in itself !) Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

The language employed isn't the biggest problem in the argument.  That would be the argument's contents.