Ontological Disproof of God

[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.

robvalue --chainsaw of logic.
It was on page 24, post # 236, of my thread, that you wrote the above, which is an example of the style of your writing which struck me as "cryptic".  The two sentences are beautiful in their radically nebulous structure.
To launch the message you are intending to send to me by employing "This...", is, to me, personally, a jarring attempted reference to nothing which I can readily comprehend that you are speaking about; now, upon reflection, I see that by ''this'' you simply meant the entireity of my massive struggle to engage others in what I consider to be a viable disproof of the deity of Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ. However, in order to obviate, right from the start, one's statement putting the reader at a complete loss regarding what you are referring to,  by employing what I call "this"-writing, which cryptic ''this''-writing ought to, in my opinion, always be avoided !  I will, in future, continue to give you my personal evaluation of the sentences; however, I can see that you are raising, as far as I am concerned, some very significant and beautiful questions, which, I hope, we can pursue together. Thank you so much, robvalue !  Negatio.

[Losty]

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.

I don’t know why you’re responding to this old post that you’ve already previously responded to. But...it’s not really fair to say the site isn’t user friendly. Hundreds of people use it just fine. You’re the only person I have ever seen struggle with it this much. And I honestly can’t tell whether you’re faking not being able to quote as a part of your trolling. ! Losty.

[robvalue]

@neg: Thank you for your feedback!

As usual I had not meant to make myself difficult to understand, but I appreciate how a linear parsing of my sentence could cause some initial confusion. I am writing informally on the forum, and I'm always available to clear up misunderstandings, so I don't spend a huge amount of time on each post.

I could indeed have improved the readability by making it clear what I was talking about from the start, rather than assuming the meaning would be clear from the rest of the sentence and the placing of the message.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hmm...

My pro-tips for operating on this forum, OP. First is to accurately use the quotation function. I can see you’re able to edit posts quite easily, and indeed utilise common forum languages and shorthand (OP is an example), so I’m not sure why you’re unable to use this when the BB code is actually very simple and user friendly.

Not doing this is both frustrating for other members who are trying to communicate with you (responding without quoting will not alert them, and if you start cutting and moving text and not adding in additional quotation tags it stymies the flow of your post at best and makes it unreadable at worst) and, to be frank, draws suspicion.

In addition, I’m not here to tell people how to write their posts, but from my long experience moderating and posting on a wide number of forums, people who refer to themselves in the 3rd person, and write in an overly verbose and tangential fashion, are often not genuine in their attempts at discourse. Again, I’m not here to tell you how to write, but the reaction you will (continue) to get from posters is one of frustration and annoyance as people will find it very difficult to decipher what it is you’re trying to say (and that’s not due to a lack of comepetencies on their part, many of our members are very well read in a wide variety of disciplines as you’ll see from perusing previous threads). People want to talk to other members, but if it feels like they’re having a conversation with a poorly programmed chat bot, they’ll soon lose interest.

Those are my pro tips - take them or leave them.

[negatio]

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.

I don’t know why you’re responding to this old post that you’ve already previously responded to. But...it’s not really fair to say the site isn’t user friendly. Hundreds of people use it just fine. You’re the only person I have ever seen struggle with it this much. And I honestly can’t tell whether you’re faking not being able to quote as a part of your trolling. ! Losty.

I am not faking not being unable to quote, I am not here to troll, but, to engage in polemic regarding my OP.
I am responding to the old post because I thought you just might be interested in a description as to why I had such an impossible time doing what you deem to be so simple !  Why on earth do you think I am in bad faith regarding quoting; I am authentically still confused about why, for instance, Lucanus said I am still borking quotes, what, exactly is borking ?  What am I doing that still appears to be incorrect ?  Negatio.

[Losty]

I don’t know why you’re responding to this old post that you’ve already previously responded to. But...it’s not really fair to say the site isn’t user friendly. Hundreds of people use it just fine. You’re the only person I have ever seen struggle with it this much. And I honestly can’t tell whether you’re faking not being able to quote as a part of your trolling. ! Losty.

I am not faking not being unable to quote, I am not here to troll, but, to engage in polemic regarding my OP.
I am responding to the old post because I thought you just might be interested in a description as to why I had such an impossible time doing what you deem to be so simple !  Why on earth do you think I am in bad faith regarding quoting; I am authentically still confused about why, for instance, Lucanus said I am still borking quotes, what, exactly is borking ?  What am I doing that still appears to be incorrect ?  Negatio.

The last 3 pages seem to be Bork free. Congrats

[negatio]

responding without quoting will not alert them,

Wow, thank you so much for such a beautiful attempt to help.  I was told by a member that I can simply click on Reply, and the BB code is automatically set into play, and I just type my reply in the box below where the quote appears.  That is precisely what I have been doing, and, thereby I thought I was making progress.

Now I think I hear you saying that I always have to quote by clicking on Quote, and, using BB code, each and every time.
You clearly appear to be using "quote'' in at least two different senses, perhaps three senses, and, OP is being used in what appears to be different senses.  Thank you for explaining how I am being perceived by others, however, believe me, I am being authentically inept here, and am not attempting to mess with anyone's head, or, to surreptitiously troll.  Thanks a million. Negatio.

[Losty]

OP can mean original post or original poster. So they’re either referring to your first post or to you specifically.

[negatio]

Hmm...

My pro-tips for operating on this forum, OP. First is to accurately use the quotation function. I can see you’re able to edit posts quite easily, and indeed utilise common forum languages and shorthand (OP is an example), so I’m not sure why you’re unable to use this when the BB code is actually very simple and user friendly.

Not doing this is both frustrating for other members who are trying to communicate with you (responding without quoting will not alert them, and if you start cutting and moving text and not adding in additional quotation tags it stymies the flow of your post at best and makes it unreadable at worst) and, to be frank, draws suspicion.

In addition, I’m not here to tell people how to write their posts, but from my long experience moderating and posting on a wide number of forums, people who refer to themselves in the 3rd person, and write in an overly verbose and tangential fashion, are often not genuine in their attempts at discourse. Again, I’m not here to tell you how to write, but the reaction you will (continue) to get from posters is one of frustration and annoyance as people will find it very difficult to decipher what it is you’re trying to say (and that’s not due to a lack of comepetencies on their part, many of our members are very well read in a wide variety of disciplines as you’ll see from perusing previous threads). People want to talk to other members, but if it feels like they’re having a conversation with a poorly programmed chat bot, they’ll soon lose interest.

Those are my pro tips - take them or leave them.

OP can mean original post or original poster. So they’re either referring to your first post or to you specifically.

Yes, thank you.  Why is a box with KevinM1's "I am not a troll." constantly appearing in some sort of sub-ground on my thread, from August 21st ??? Negatio.

---

I can see you’re able to edit posts quite easily, and indeed utilise common forum languages and shorthand (OP is an example), so I’m not sure why you’re unable to use this

You lost me at "this", what this ? Negatio.

[Angrboda]