Ontological Disproof of God

[LastPoet]

This thread gives me testicle cancer.

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah, fifty pages of trying to understand how to format a reply? No one is this obtuse. Not even me.

[Abaddon_ire]

Yeah, fifty pages of trying to understand how to format a reply?  No one is this obtuse.  Not even me.

I concede that I am quite well versed in the programming arts, and I do preferentially respond in source code mode. But that is a mere preference. In this very post, I am not in source code. I am simply typing directly into the UI. 

I know that there is rampant dishonesty going on. Sure, in thread and via PM I tried to help the hopeless, but that has ceased. Those bridges are permanently burned.

Just row back and take a look at the mess that the OP is. Post #1 if you will. It is such a comprehensive mess that I and many others attempted to salvage it. Purely on the basis that there might be some notion worth considering contained therein. OP then proceeded to fight tooth and nail for his OP. Nobody argued his point because nobody could make head nor tail of it. OP continued to insist that if he was incomprehensible, it was all our fault, not his.

This is outrageous arrogance and given the efforts of many here to explain simple presentation, well, Were it an employee of mine, it would be a former employee in short order.

50 pages in? Page count is the goal of the troll. 

So why is it that we have not all addressed the OP?

Simple. Nobody can make head nor tail of it and neg doesn't want to explain it. Neg is happier arguing pedantics than presenting an actual discussion.

The Kicker? Neg has threatened to re-write post#1 many times, but has assiduously avoided doing so, ever. And further, everyone in this thread is already a self declared agnostic or atheist. Surely he is not so nuts as to convince an atheist to become more of an atheist? Right? Wrong. Add to that the simple fact that the ontological proof of god OR disproof of god is utterly useless anyway and what are we left with?

Vapour.

[KevinM1]

His motivations have been clear since the first reply, where he chastised us for being too dumb and lazy to figure out what he meant and claimed to be insulted at the very notion of rewriting his post into something more easily digestible. And then the idiotic claim that he was merely posting his treatise here as some kind of digital archiving endeavor. Those aren't the responses of someone looking for an honest exchange.

[LastPoet]

His motivations have been clear since the first reply, where he chastised us for being too dumb and lazy to figure out what he meant and claimed to be insulted at the very notion of rewriting his post into something more easily digestible.  And then the idiotic claim that he was merely posting his treatise here as some kind of digital archiving endeavor.  Those aren't the responses of someone looking for an honest exchange.

But you haven't voted, obviously just casting shade.

VOTE: lynch KevinM1

---

Just kidding. Or am I?

---

It must be only me that has a hard time conveying my ideas in english. @OP, can you please try to do it in Portuguese? It must be easier for me as you have been a 'broche' altogether.

[emjay]

I understand how frustrating it is to lose large parts of your post. It's happened to me before as well, so if I'm writing a long and complex post I usually make a backup in a text editor. And to reduce the likelihood of it happening, I prefer to use source mode only, which doesn't automatically attempt to add or correct your tags. But obviously that's not going to work for you if you're not comfortable with using BBCode directly.

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

I understand your perspective, and if you're right then as I said I'll accept ragging for all time afterwards, and learn a valuable lesson from it, but I just see too much that makes me think otherwise;

Firstly I have experience with people who are complete technophobes... my mum and others.... so that mindset does exist in some people; where every time they use the computer, I have to explain the same things over and over again... simple things like how to search or close a page. It simply isn't retained... or if it is it's only in procedural form such that if that procedure goes wrong, they're completely lost about what do next. And since they don't use the computer enough, they never learn any the underlying principles of what they're doing, so never learn rules of thumb to rely on in the future, and are thus essentially stuck with whatever procedures are provided for them. This situation feels a lot like that to me.

Secondly, I feel like progress has has been made, albeit slowly. And as I said, I think my mum would have taken just as long to get to the same level, if not longer.

Thirdly, his difficulty with context reminds me of me. If I'm reading a book and it names and defines x on one page, then proceeds to continue talking about that thing for several pages afterwards but only referring back to it with 'it' or 'that' or 'this' etc, rather than the name, then I start to get lost and not sure what it's talking about anymore, so I look forward to the next time it uses the full name, just to make sure I'm figuratively speaking, on the same page. I find it a big problem with books heavy on description, because the longer it goes on, the more I'm likely to forget or lose track of what it's supposed to be describing.

In my own case, that difficulty with context... which is a big thing for me... is potentially ascribable to Asperger's Syndrome. That is, someone I've known most of my life, who's well placed to make such a judgement, since she has a son who is Aspergers, is absolutely convinced that I am also, just 'high functioning'. And I do indeed have a lot in common with her son, and several other 'Aspies' I know. Negatio took it offensively when I suggested he may also be Aspergers, but it's nothing about intelligence, just different ways of thinking and processing the world. He says he overthinks things... like Texas Holdem... so do I; overthink is my middle name. But whether he is or not, or whether I am or not, nonetheless I understand that problem with context in his case because I share it.

As to the OP, I just can't help wonder if negatio had made an introductory post in the introductions forum and got to know everyone a bit first, whether we'd still be having the same problems now, or the whether the OP might have been received a bit more positively... and less likely to be assumed to be a shit and run/trolling post like we're all so used to from theists. As it stands, it remains too overwhelming for most people to parse, myself included, and not good forum etiquette to drop such a thing as a first post - but if he's new to forumming then it's understandable that he wouldn't know - but he has been trying to reword it... so I do see what you call good faith here, it's just that focus has shifted from the content of his argument to all these technical problems etc, so from that perspective, the frustration - and anger - from all sides makes sense. So it just seems like one big, and unfortunate, misunderstanding to me.

[LastPoet]

You know emjay... you are far too kind for your own good.

[negatio]

Abaddon, I have rewritten my reply to you on paper, in longhand, I am going to type it into Windows 10 Word Pad; which I was doing just now, and, a friend called, wanting to come over, go up to a cabin I have, and drink beer and hang with an exotic new registered dog he just bought; I will respond to you later, then.

I am not talking the OP here. Reference what I am almost sure is my page 19 # 184, for the short rewrite of Part I of the OP, which, unfortunately, is not double spaced.  The little portion to which I just referred, is my disproof of Deity, it is short. Just that, the rewritten sector of the OP is what I am speaking about at present. You absolutely do not have to read it; emjay is correct, and, incorrect, when he said I do not have a right to force my writing on people.  Correct, I neither have such a right, nor do I have, at all, such a desire.  I have merely thrown my writing into the world via the forum,(I was not aiming at anyone in the forum), which I have right to do; what happens to it thereafter is totally out of my control; however, I can rewrite and defend that which I have t h r o w n...Negatio.

[emjay]

You know emjay... you are far too kind for your own good.

Yeah, well I just tend to look for the good in people, both online and IRL but it does mean that I do get taken advantage of sometimes (or scum read sometimes in Mafia... since my readlists are more likely to contain town leans than scum leans ), because I don't know when to let go.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

I understand your perspective, and if you're right then as I said I'll accept ragging for all time afterwards, and learn a valuable lesson from it, but I just see too much that makes me think otherwise;

You will garner no ragging from me. And I doubt anyone else.

Firstly I have experience with people who are complete technophobes... my mum and others.... so that mindset does exist in some people; where every time they use the computer, I have to explain the same things over and over again... simple things like how to search or close a page. It simply isn't retained... or if it is it's only in procedural form such that if that procedure goes wrong, they're completely lost about what do next. And since they don't use the computer enough, they never learn any the underlying principles of what they're doing, so never learn rules of thumb to rely on in the future, and are thus essentially stuck with whatever procedures are provided for them. This situation feels a lot like that to me.

I hate myself for it, but the fallacy of sunk cost is a real thing. Took me quite some time to admit it.

Secondly, I feel like progress has has been made, albeit slowly. And as I said, I think my mum would have taken just as long to get to the same level, if not longer.

Mine died ten years ago. But I know exactly what her response would be to negatio's posts.

Thirdly, his difficulty with context reminds me of me. If I'm reading a book and it names and defines x on one page, then proceeds to continue talking about that thing for several pages afterwards but only referring back to it with 'it' or 'that' or 'this' etc, rather than the name, then I start to get lost and not sure what it's talking about anymore, so I look forward to the next time it uses the full name, just to make sure I'm figuratively speaking, on the same page. I find it a big problem with books heavy on description, because the longer it goes on, the more I'm likely to forget or lose track of what it's supposed to be describing.

And there is a problem. Nobody else experiences the tragic hurdles that he claims. Nobody. Just him and him alone. Does not that give you pause? In the case of my own long dead mother, I had only to explain anything once. Then she had an "Aha" moment and it was never raised again. And I raised up thread my ancient friend. And the simple fact is that it is always possible to dumb things down so that anyone can understand them right up until one reaches the nether depths of dumb.

In my own case, that difficulty with context... which is a big thing for me... is potentially ascribable to Asperger's Syndrome. That is, someone I've known most of my life, who's well placed to make such a judgement, since she has a son who is Aspergers, is absolutely convinced that I am also, just 'high functioning'. And I do indeed have a lot in common with her son, and several other 'Aspies' I know. Negatio took it offensively when I suggested he may also be Aspergers, but it's nothing about intelligence, just different ways of thinking and processing the world. He says he overthinks things... like Texas Holdem... so do I; overthink is my middle name. But whether he is or not, or whether I am or not, nonetheless I understand that problem with context in his case because I share it.

Think about that. Do any of those double down? Or do they not? Do any of those strive to be better? Or do they not?

To me it is very simple. Why is our protagonist actually here? The options are very limited.

A. He actually thinks he has a killer onto-bonko argument against god. Who cares? We are mostly godless heathens anyway. And certainly all of the participants in this thread are.
B. He wants to test the logic of his argument against fellow atheists. I dismiss this since he clearly has no interest in so doing.
C. Troll. Sorta looks possible but the jury is out.
D. Loon. The eight ball has things to say there.
E. Something the hell else.

OP is singularly uninterested in fixing up the OP but spends all available time being trenchant. OP has threatened to re-write the OP several times but refuses to do so. I and others have expended a lot of time and effort both in thread and via PM to no avail. Where does one draw the line on the sunk cost? Never?

I will freely admit that I was initially harsh. Then I relented and provided a swathe of information as did many others. All of us had it hurled right back at us in continuous fits of pique. Let us be clear. This was not a oneoff tantrum. It is still happening.

Way back up thread when anyone granted some leeway, the question was asked about platforms. What platform are you using. We all thought this might offer an insight into whether or not it was a technical issue. Well that was an exercise in extracting blood from a stone. Crank #1 dodged like a pro.

Tell you what. Go read the thread from the start. Then venture an opinion.