Ontological Disproof of God

[robvalue]

@negatio: Okay, thanks for your answer Glad you liked my question! I agree that the utter stupidity of Yahweh would appear to discount the claims made about it.

[negatio]

@ Negatio
So you really don't give a shit about letting other people understand your arguments. I mean, it's ok. But to be honest, if you can't take the criticism, stay out of the forum.

As I probably made clear, English is not my first language, and your style of writing (clearly reminiscent of the classical style of certain Latin and Greek authors I've had the dubious pleasure to translate in high school) is way too abstruse to make me even consider the possibility of trying to make sense of it!

Seeing as we're 18 (or however many) pages into this thread, and this same objection, along with many others, has been met with accusations of "ad hominem" attacks, and you are somehow still borking quotes all over the place, I am even more inclined to doubt in your good faith.

Lucanus, I hope you saw my response to your last post wherein I praised your critique of my run-on sentences; yes I have learned the basic mode of responding; but, somehow, not yet fully understanding how to control what happens before I hit the PostReply button, weird shit is still  happening, so what, I am so inundated with member requests for response, that I have little time to spend attempting to further fathom the robot's modus operandi.

I have just told you, you have successfully convinced me to eliminate my run-on sentencing, and, nonetheless you still insist I am not interested in interpersonal communication; of course I am I interested; and, yes, its all ad hominem argument; - you successfully cast your positive  criticism without, at the same time, alienating me as a person by accusing me of inadequacy, etc., etc., etc., as has been the case for many days thus far...we are now at thirty five pages...It is so tiring to have all this constantly be about me; I have tried to explain that it is not about me; fuck me; I am sick of me here...address my position objectively, absent considerations regarding me, for, when you address my position you are, therein addressing me, because it is my position, but, we don't have to keep my fucking fucked-up ass constantly I the foreground, for, there is nothing in the world that is so totally and radically boring than constantly appearing to wish to have everything revolving around one's self...leave the specific me out of the dialogical/dialectical interchange which constitutes the polemical disputational process which is philosophy, and, which is now transpiring in this philosophy sector of the forum ! Thanks a Million, Lucanus. Negatio.

---

Negatio falls apart when told he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

Unfortunately, he's able to communicate better when this happens. Maybe the high horse or pedestal is not the place for him.

Yes, brewer, this, your freshest argumentum ad hominem, you so kindly assert that I fall all apart, and then, unfortunately, I communicate better when I am all fallen apart, and, whereas you were for my communicating better, as you put it, you are now saying that communicating better is an unfortunate occurrence . You are not being consistent.

Precisely, my seeming intention to be on high is indeed a fucking drag; being Deity is a horrid bitch.

I actually missed you brewer !  You never have answered my question. Are you a counsellor/attorney/officer of the court/an esquire ?  Thank you , sir. Negatio.

[Losty]

If you want people to respond to your position instead of making it about you, you’ll need to learn to speak common English. If you’re incapable of communicating your message, it’s no one’s fault but your own.

[The Grand Nudger]

His position has been addressed, directly, and multiple times.....ofc.  It's just more convenient to bitch and moan than to continue that discussion.  I wonder if he's free to stop doing that?

[brewer]

---

Negatio falls apart when told he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

Unfortunately, he's able to communicate better when this happens. Maybe the high horse or pedestal is not the place for him.

Yes, brewer, this, your freshest argumentum ad hominem, you so kindly assert that I fall all apart, and then, unfortunately, I communicate better when I am all fallen apart, and, whereas you were for my communicating better, as you put it, you are now saying that communicating better is an unfortunate occurrence . You are not being consistent.

Precisely, my seeming intention to be on high is indeed a fucking drag; being Deity is a horrid bitch.

I actually missed you brewer !  You never have answered my question. Are you a counsellor/attorney/officer of the court/an esquire ?  Thank you , sir. Negatio.

Your getting closer, I am something.

[negatio]

@ Negatio
So you really don't give a shit about letting other people understand your arguments. I mean, it's ok. But to be honest, if you can't take the criticism, stay out of the forum.

As I probably made clear, English is not my first language, and your style of writing (clearly reminiscent of the classical style of certain Latin and Greek authors I've had the dubious pleasure to translate in high school) is way too abstruse to make me even consider the possibility of trying to make sense of it!

Seeing as we're 18 (or however many) pages into this thread, and this same objection, along with many others, has been met with accusations of "ad hominem" attacks, and you are somehow still borking quotes all over the place, I am even more inclined to doubt in your good faith.

Lucanus,  Consider the subjoined :
Part II.
1.  A profound error is transpiring in law.  The error has been named "jurisprudential illusion".  Recognition of the jurisprudential illusion error was achieved through a study of J.P. Sartre's theory of origin of human action. Sartre, in turn, derived his theory of origination of human action from his study of Baruch Spinoza's (16  -    ) phrase,
''...determinatio negatio est...", known as the infinitely rich Spinozistic dictum, which, in English, is"...determination is negation...". Sartre, however, quoted Spinoza's dictum as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", which was Hegel's rendition of Spinoza's dictum, which, in English, reads:  "All determination is negation.".

---

@negatio: Okay, thanks for your answer Glad you liked my question! I agree that the utter stupidity of Yahweh would appear to discount the claims made about it.

What do you mean by the ''it'' as the end of your last sentence robvalue ?  Yes, I liked your questions, however your writing is cryptic, whereas mine is merely abstruse ! Thanks. Negatio.

---

If you want people to respond to your position instead of making it about you, you’ll need to learn to speak common English. If you’re incapable of communicating your message, it’s no one’s fault but your own.

Losty, I once knew "common" English; lost fluency therein; admitted I could not write in common English; encountered the medicinal dialogic dialectic now transpiring in the philosophy section of the forum; and, was beaten into consciousness of your so called ''common'' English; i.e., see my last post to Lucanus. Thanks once again for the work it took you in making my site appear to be normal ! Negatio.

---

---

Yes, brewer, this, your freshest argumentum ad hominem, you so kindly assert that I fall all apart, and then, unfortunately, I communicate better when I am all fallen apart, and, whereas you were for my communicating better, as you put it, you are now saying that communicating better is an unfortunate occurrence . You are not being consistent.

Precisely, my seeming intention to be on high is indeed a fucking drag; being Deity is a horrid bitch.

I actually missed you brewer !  You never have answered my question. Are you a counsellor/attorney/officer of the court/an esquire ?  Thank you , sir. Negatio.

Your getting closer, I am something.

brewer  Very interesting, you are ''something'', never.  In existentialism it is maintained consciousness, a nothingness, which is what you and I are, is a not, which, in fact can never, ever, Be, anything. Consciousness is perpetually not what it is and what it is not, i.e., a constant thrust into an absent future as a perpetual engagement in nothingness, doubly nihilating as non-being past a past, and unto a not-yet, perpetually remaking itself anew, daily; thus, one can not be, is not, "Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals"; or, a Philosopher; or a thief; a murderer...for by the time you characterize a certain person as being such and such, he is already elsewhere, for, he is a perpetual elsewhere...i.e., freedom.  Brewer, Brewer, Brewer.  The enigmatic Brewer...Negato.

[robvalue]

@neg: By "it", I meant Yahweh. Yahweh is too stupid to be a deity, as written in the bible, or is playing dumb.

My writing is cryptic? How so?

[negatio]

@neg: By "it", I meant Yahweh. Yahweh is too stupid to be a deity, as written in the bible, or is playing dumb.

My writing is cryptic? How so?

Excellent humor robvalue, "...too stupid...playing dumb" !!
The Duane-brain is always purring under the hood and, is formulating an answer to the question regarding why it sees your writing as "cryptic".  When it is done it will let me know, and, then, I will tell you !
I have already had to edit a sentence I wrote for Lucanus, in the mode of ordinary language, emphatically demanded by the members, for accuracy, thus:
A profound error is transpiring in law. The error has been named "jurisprudential illusion". Recognition of the jurisprudential illusion error was achieved through my study of J. P. Sartre's theory of origin of  human action. Sartre derived his theory of origination of human action from his study of Hegel's study of Baruch Spinoza's (1632-1677) phrase "...determinatio negatio est...", claimed by Hegel to possess "infinite riches", and, is generally known as Spinoza's dictum, which dictum reads, in English "...determination is negation..." However, Sartre employed 
"Omnis determinatio est negatio.", which is Hegel's rendition of Spinoza's dictum, which, in English, reads: "All determination is negation."

[Abaddon_ire]

@neg: By "it", I meant Yahweh. Yahweh is too stupid to be a deity, as written in the bible, or is playing dumb.

My writing is cryptic? How so?

Given the thread, it is a rather odd accusation to make.

[brewer]

---

Your getting closer, I am something.

brewer  Very interesting, you are ''something'', never.  In existentialism it is maintained consciousness, a nothingness, which is what you and I are, is a not, which, in fact can never, ever, Be, anything. Consciousness is perpetually not what it is and what it is not, i.e., a constant thrust into an absent future as a perpetual engagement in nothingness, doubly nihilating as non-being past a past, and unto a not-yet, perpetually remaking itself anew, daily; thus, one can not be, is not, "Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals"; or, a Philosopher; or a thief; a murderer...for by the time you characterize a certain person as being such and such, he is already elsewhere, for, he is a perpetual elsewhere...i.e., freedom.  Brewer, Brewer, Brewer.  The enigmatic Brewer...Negato.

I don't care about existentialism. And you don't follow to well. I suggest that you expand your horizons.