Ontological Disproof of God

[robvalue]

I always try to make my writing as clear as possible, so I appreciate any feedback as to how I can improve. Of course sometimes I fail to make myself clear, and I’m happy to elaborate.

There could theoretically be some entity somewhere that bears some resemblance to a character in one of the religious books. It would probably laugh at the miserable portrayal it gets. I find it unlikely though that a resemblance would be anything more than fleeting.

[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?

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

Negatio was merely making a one word observation, then, Abaddon leaped to ''accusation" ?! I am not making, and will not make, in future, any sort of ascription of fault to Robvalue, regarding my impression of the mysterious, spiraling, juxtaposition of terms Rob employs, No; Rob's sentences are cryptic, is that a fault ?, no, its a poetry, almost, distantly, a Gene Genet-like tempo, cast in a brightly comic-book coloration, I, for some reason, imagine colorful personages dancing about, when I read Robvalue...Negatio. P.S.. I am down to maybe an hour, an hour and a half of fuel whereby to generate electricity; my friend who always helps me haul fuel with his truck, had a shoulder operation yesterday, and is in agonizing pain; I am attempting to make other arrangements; so, if I disappear for some period, you now know the reason; I had to say so, because when if the computer had just gone dead, and, I was offline for a time, you guys would be puzzled...

---

I'm not sure how you go about tackling characters in books of fiction. Are we saying that Yahweh, if he was real and as described, wouldn't be a deity? Or that within the fictional universe of the book, he isn't a deity? (Or maybe that the fictional world as described can't correlate with ours?)

He appears to be higher on the hierarchy than us in either case, just by being more powerful, even if he's a total dimwit. And he supposedly made man, in both cases.

(Or maybe that the fictional world as described can't correlate with ours?)

Yes, precisely, the world of Yahweh, whether it was a fiction, or a real historical state of affairs where Moses actually had the stone tablets and everything, does not totally matter, but, whatever it was, real, or fictional, I am indeed saying that that Yahweh-Christ world fails, in a cardinal consideration, to correlate with the way our existence upon the face of this earth actually transpires in regard to how we humans originate and upsurge our acts ! Yes, precisely, absolutely, Robvalue !  Wow, yes !  Negatio.

[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.

In philosophy, and this is the philosophy sector of the forum, criticism cannot be mere pure assertion; what on earth are you talking  about Lucanus, you gave me constructive criticism, I took it, and posted a new writing of the first sentence of a philosophical/theoretical destruction of the ontological unintelligibility in jurisprudence, in short, I wrote you discrete statements which, are the beginning of an explanation of the theoretical tools which underpin my particular position, i.e., the position I essentially am taking is that the most fundamental presupposition presumed by American jurisprudence is an incorrect presupposition, i. e., that all these doctors of jurisprudence presuppose, incorrectly, that their language of  law determines them to act, via law, against persons in court; or, that the jurisprudents' determine themselves, by language of law, to act against persons via punishment, etc..  Jurisprudence relies primarily on a concept which it calls "stare decisis", which is simply a system of employing precedent in deciding/determining the ruling which shall be made in a given new case.  Stare decisis is a system of determination via past events, and, no past event is efficient to determine a human being to do or not do anything.  There is no efficacy in the past which can, in fact, reach into our present freedom and determine that freedom on any wise whatsoever...and, blah, blah, on and on.... borking quotes, yes, of course, I don't understand the system at the level of other members...what does that have to do with philosophy ?!  I am such a fucking fuck-up that I just became a Junior Member of this Forum, in a mere ten or so days. Negatio. P.S. I have worked very extensively on, and instantly totally lost, some of the most beautiful sentences which I have ever written, by making the radical mistake of going into the preview box; just unintentionally grazing a key on the keyboard, or clicking the mouse to bring up the curser, has cost me big-time in that fucking bullshit space...one, most of the time, when writing, has to constantly deal with the robot running all the words together, to the point of wasting so much effort that it is absolutely horrid; when one enters the edit box, and clicks the mouse to bring up the cursor, the cursor leaps wildly upward to a totally different position in the edit box, while, one has a writing merely just sitting awaiting editing, and in that box you can instantly loose your work quick-like-a-mouse, instantly, and that is no place to be and no feeling to have to endure.
In philosophy, going directly for the throat of an opponent when positing a polemic, is the most efficient and hard-hitting possible means of defeating the opponent's presupposition(s), and, thereby, his overall position, and, going for the throat is going at the presupposition(s) which are mistakenly made.
  It is not that I will not take criticism, I accept criticism, however it cannot be presented as pure assertion; as ad hominem argumentation; as personal insult----it has to be reasoned and rational argument against the intelligibility of the opponents position, which clearly demonstrates, logically,a destruction of that position.  Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure is nice to have somebody come along and explain to us what philosophy is and how to do it.  Not sure how I managed to stumble through my turgid existence before you got here, Neg.

[negatio]

Lucanus
way too abstruse
Please show me an example of what you find too abstruse.  You gave me excellent criticism regarding run-on sentencing, I adopted the advice; however, you just keep ragging and ragging, on and on ! ? There are indeed ad hominem attacks continually directed against me, in is inadmissible in philosophy to attack persons, it is a person's position which is the proper object of attack. The entire OP is not abstruse in every portion thereof; Part I., rewritten, describes the double nihilation in a more simplified way, in smaller words...philosophy is normally rather difficult to comprehend instantaneously, it usually takes a good bit of effort.  I believe the rewritten segment is on page 19 at #184. And, I posted, to you,the rewritten first sentence of Part II.  I do care to communicate, I have implemented changes you have demanded; however, I am indeed really beginning not to give a goddamn fucking shit what you do or do  not want to put any effort into understanding; you have become an asset to me, however, you are being absolutely tactless, therefore, you are making me angry by the rude way you are irrepressibly going at me; - go at any portion of my position which you might possibly be able to,(oh, I see, the position is too abstruse to understand, therefore you cannot even begin refutation !).  I have written an introduction explaining how I will be explaining the entire rest of the essay in terms of Lincoln's famous report of how he addressed others: "Tell them. Tell them what you told them; and, then tell them again." P.S., Yesterday my generator died a horrid death. Today the store shelves were bare of generators; so, I bought from what was available, and came-up with a big brute which costs $2.50 per hour in fuel, not to mention oil, which generators burn like wildfire, not to mention the cost of the generator itself, so, don't fucking try to tell me that I am not interested in communicating !  Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could restate your position in any style, any language, with or without all this silly filler...and none of that will change the way in which it utterly missed it's mark.

[negatio]

Negatio, I explained how you could very easily simplify your language without losing any meaning.  I even gave an example of your sentences translated into functional English.

It should be any communicator's goal to explain as concisely (read: eloquently) as possible.  Dumping a bunch of unnecessarily verbiose syntax on casual readers is rude and unlikely to achieve any positive goal except giving people an arena in which to try their favorite new cat memes.

What's your goal here?  If it's to practice your vocabulary, well done.  Most of your words are used correctly.  If it's to communicate ideas you have an actual interest in, then you can a) communicate properly; or b) just blame everyone for not wanting to wade through your text wall.

Does (b) really give you more satisfaction than a sincere discussion would?  If so, fine.  If not, then I recommend looking at the points I gave you and learning something about writing style.  At the risk of lacking humility, it's something I'm qualified to teach, and something I believe you could learn.

Negatio, I explained how you could very easily simplify your language without losing any meaning. I even gave an example of your sentences translated into functional English.
Bennyboy; I never, ever saw what you so kindly did there; show me where/what it is ! ? Negatio.

[Whateverist]

Weird enough when you refer to yourself in the 3rd person. When you address yourself I just glaze over.

You seem more motivated to protect your argument behind layers of protective language than to risk having it criticized directly.

You bore me.

[robvalue]

It would seem characters such as Yahweh can't exist as literally written, because they are not internally consistent. How it could work that a real being contradicts itself, I don't know.

The only way it could exist is by allowing deviation from the text, and by doing so, enough deviation can produce a mundane and very possible being. The remaining question would be how much deviation is "allowed", and whether you can produce a deity within that restriction. I don't think there's a sensible answer to that, as we're already way past blurring the line between reality and fantasy at this point.

[negatio]

Upon reflection, I see that central to the fact that members are experiencing significant difficulty engaging the language and theoretical constructs employed by the OP, is, that the OP's language participates in the particular language game(s) attendant upon writing description of negatite; nothingness; negation; and nihilation; a language game which members probably have not encountered; and, now, with my OP, they have run smack-dab directly into a discourse posited via the language games of negation;; nothingness; non-being; nihilation, and negatite.
The OP is not disorganized; it does not contain superfluous and flourishing phrasing; it is cut to the absolute bone; it is not failing in simplicity; it is a clear as possible; it is not written by one characterizable in terms of neurosis, or mental handicap, or other psychological aberration;---it is simply that the language and theory whereby the OP is cast is totally and radically alien to the positivist/materialist/scientistic/objectivistic weltanschauung characterizable of member thinkers.
My ontological disproof of Deity, posited against how we currently think of deity, is contained within the several fragments which constitute Part I of the essay.  The remainder of the writing is an extensive description of the flawed thinking attendant upon American jurisprudence, e.g., "jurisprudential illusion", which is what Yahweh/Jehovah and Jesus Christ all suffered from; ---and, the remainder of the treatise is essentially description of a human ontological utopia...
I have very slightly recomposed Part I of the OP, by discarding the transitional phrase "while, all the while". However, I am having an absolutely horrid time trying to find an example of how all the trolly little trolls on this site prefer to see citations written.

You are failing to communicate clearly.

downbeatplumb:  As compared to what ? What series of words would have communicated what I failed to communicate ?  Straight-up assertion does not hunt, as people are wont to say: "That dog won't hunt."
Can you make clear what I failed to make clear ? Show me just one instance which needs more clarity, and, show me, precisely, in language, what that absent clarity should be, or, should have been...Negatio.

---

Okay, bennyboy.  You just gave me a superb and very fair attempted description of what you think I am doing in this forum.  You clearly are an experienced evaluator of papers. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder no way !  Autistic, no way ! Narcissistic, yes, that does seem to make some sense, given the way I have spoken regarding myself, and, I seem to be too great even for my own damn self !I have no experience in this ilk of forum.  I am absolutely ignorant of even of what you guys are talking about regarding quoting other members, and, quoting historical persons.  I am the kind of strange dude that can follow the most abstruse philosophical position, but am a total and absolute failure at understanding how to play Texas hold-em; my friends cannot believe it, I cannot follow the unfolding of the game, it appears to me the rules change with every hand !  I win the money, because I understand the value of the hands, but I envy those who so fully understand the game.Following all this code stuff in regard to referencing appears to be as impossible for me as to achieve attainment of a reflective understanding of Texas hold-em !  When I click of a page as advised by members nothing  happens even remotely like what they are telling me...I am, at this point, pretty totally lost in the middle of the woods regarding how to post my responses, and quote auteurs...\Now is the time for all good men to.'  Goofy 'Sapientality' ...is that it ?I truly was not intending to be rude by placing such an idiosyncratic writing on your forum; I had absolutely no idea it would be deemed rude a priori !I have read all the criticisms of my writing and my recent conduct, and it is mostly good and kind...some persons were so mean and insulting they successfully goaded me and truly pissed me off !Your attempt to  understand what I am doing writing in a fashion which  others take such violent offense to is appreciated.  To think that I am  intentionally hoping to cause problems here, for the sake of attaining some thrill or profit is incorrect.  I do apologize for laying what you guys call a solid wall of text on you, and, I was not trying to do anything against anyone.There are some radically intelligent people here, who have done me a lot of edification.  Surely I want to communicate...I cannot write in the multiplicity of fashions which would be required by all of the several demands members have made...I have always thought the ideal means of setting forth what I want to say would be bit by bit,  in piecemeal fashion...if you view my fragments they are mostly small and discrete units, attempting to say what I wish bit by bit...one member's idea of writing an introduction is sound.Bennyboy, I totally appreciate your sagacious concern...By the way, what the hell does OP mean ?

---

Yes @Benny, that is precisely and exactly what I am doing...continually maintaining a clarity about what I am attempting to describe via intentional repetitions...

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote tags

What’s so hard about clicking “reply” and writing beneath the quote? I don’t get it.

I would comment on the rest but it looks like a crunchy word salad to me

Losty, I am so new to this that it is like having to learn and read Chinese without being able to read Chinese. I have no idea what you are talking about...

Losty, what was "so hard" about a Newbie trying to do what you see as so simple is, when the Newbie gets to "beneath the quote", whatever, or, wherever that was supposed to be, the normal figure-ground function of his consciousness cannot see the figure which you describe as "beneath the quote", for, as I now see, is a purely blank white space; so, the Newbie cannot, does not, see what you are talking about...user unfriendliness par excellence ! Negatio.