Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Negatio, a personna, informed members, at the very outset, that his writing is fragmentary, fragments, fragmented; and, therefore precisely not a unitary structure, the writing is a sketch composed of discrete lines, a drawing; although, one refrain continually runs through the entireity that is the piece, i.e., that "All determination is negation.".
Reference a re-written version of Part I of the OP, which appears on page 19 #184 of Negatio's thread, for, on page 19 is a very small writing, which is what is being referred to here, and, it is a writing attempted in a style intended to be less abstruse that the OP.
Now, enunciated in the first person, by Duane, the particular human consciousness who writes in the forum as Negatio, Reply to Abaddon:
I absolutely do not entertain the personal project of convincing a series of godless heathens to be atheist.  Your assertion, Abaddon, that such is my purpose is mistaken, and, is a meaningless absurdity.  My personal project in regard to the writing which is, I claim, a destruction of Deity, which destruction
consists in doing what I, and other Americans express by saying : "This is hardball, and, Duane is a real hard hitter !"  I, Duane, want to play, am attempting to play, world wide, hardball, in regard to, for one, the universally accepted notion that Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ are considered, world wide, to be Deity.  The hardball is Spinoza's ''...determinatio negatio est...", written nearly four hundred years ago, which formula, when thrown, deftly, within the infeild, can make a triple play, putting out all three runners, i.e., Yahweh, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ. Buddah, and all other deities are not referred to at all...
I, am not an atheist, I am agnostic, and, I have previously declared and described my agnostic optimism to members of the forum; however, via the most powerful three little words extant within the known sapiental universe, I have written what I am claiming to be an indefeasible theoretical destruction of Deity, as Deity is commonly thought to be, across the entire earth, and, the destruction was not done for fun.  The destruction is a deadly serious affair.
Your forum, Abaddon, is simply a portal into the world wide web, where I wanted to cast, to throw, my writing out into the wide world.  I am aiming at the world Abaddon, not at the particular series of atheist persons who constitute your forum, and, I am challenging the world-wide-bullshit whereupon we humans have, mistakenly, for thousands of years, founded our civilizations, i.e., the commonplace idea that written law, set forth by Deity, is efficient to, somehow, cause, or motivate, or move, or set into motion moved, human persons to act, or, to refrain from acting.
You insist, Abaddon, that I am under some necessity of undertaking my writing, and my thinking, in language solely preferable to you.  What became of Duane? Why on earth do you want to drive him out, to banish him, from his own critique ?  You are, thereby, saying that you know  how the treatise can be done better; clearly saying that you could do it far, far better.  You imply that you see an objective lack, i.e., a paper which is ideally cast in a superior fashion which is ''legible''; a paper, which, at this point is somehow an ideal Platonic form, suspended somewhere in ideality, and, you see it clearly.  So, I say, don't tell me about it, do it !  Materialize the present-absent ideally written composition; the correct, legible replacement for mine, which transcends the unitelligibility which is my paper.
So, then, merely telling me about some sketchy absent, yet ideal paper, is bullshit !  Pretend I am from Missouri, show me ! 
Abaddon, you are a radically toughminded person, absolutely, indubitably so.
You write and submit the ideal paper which you claim to see clearly, clearer than I.  Otherwise, concede that I have written a prima facie viable theoretical destruction of Christ. It is your Socratic responsibility to the world; so, do it, do it like I have, in what is actually, at the core, just a few lines...
I love the smell, in the early morning, of the pungent odor of your exotic, destructive, cocktail of :  flippant disparagement; and, of flippant insult; and, of hostility; and of flippant ire !  Thank you. Negatio.

TLDR, sorry

Fine, whatever, hide your head in the sand for now...Khemikal got through the response...Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

Khemikal, no way could you have, in such a short time, once and for all determined that I "expressed things that were untrue".  

OFC I could have, and did. It doesn't really matter who had the original thought. You're here as an advocate for it and in that capacity it doesn't make sense to hide under their skirt. Your insistence that laws are wholly incapable of compelling human determination is false, and trivially so. There are some things that some people avoid for no reason other than prohibition by law. I don't grow weed. If you asked around the boards...you'd likely find that there is at least one thing that everyone here avoids for no reason other than the law. You should know this...I can't imagine that you're any different in that regard. There's a good convo to be had on the margins, of when and what sorts of things those may be, or whether any given law is a good law on those grounds....but you'd have to engage.

Additionally, whatever the dumb christer god didn't know about us (and the list is long) our spotty ability to conform to law wasn't one of those things. It took the dim and inaccurate view that you, ironically, espouse..claiming that none of us could be righteous. Can you see why this makes the argument you offered in the OP a failure on every count? I could add another wrinkle. The conclusion doesn't actually follow. Even if you weren't as wrong as you are with both relevant assertions......it's a non seq.

I tell my son not to do things I know he'd do (and things I know he -can't- do) with regularity. Do you think that I or anyone else does this out of ignorance of the nature of our charges?

[Losty]

TLDR, sorry

Fine, whatever, hide your head in the sand for now...Khemikal got through the response...Negatio.

He’s better than me. I already know. You didn’t have to rub it in. 😓

[negatio]

Fine, whatever, hide your head in the sand for now...Khemikal got through the response...Negatio.

He’s better than me. I already know. You didn’t have to rub it in. 😓

Losty, I must apologize.  Instead of erasing an infinite series of previous messages, I'll reply to Abaddon through Losty, a risky move, I could get arrested or something. So I typed Fine, whatever, and the crazy robot sent it to you, instead of Abaddon!?  Negatio

[Losty]

Lol

[The Grand Nudger]

Stymied again by the devil box!

[emjay]

See, you can't buy this kind of entertainment (no offence negatio, but this thread is surreal )

[negatio]

Khemikal, no way could you have, in such a short time, once and for all determined that I "expressed things that were untrue".  

OFC I could have, and did.  It doesn't really matter who had the original thought.  You're here as an advocate for it and in that capacity it doesn't really make sense to hide under their skirt.  Your insistence that laws are wholly incapable of compelling human determination is false, and trivially so.  There are some things that some people avoid for no reason other than prohibition by law.  There's a good convo to be had on the margins, of when and what sorts of things those may be, or whether any given law is a good law on those grounds....but you'd have to engage.  

Additionally, whatever the dumb christer god didn't know about us (and the list is long) our spotty ability to conform to law wasn't one of those things.  It took the dim and inaccurate view that you, ironically, espouse..claiming that none of us could be righteous.

Can you see why this makes the argument you offered in the OP a failure on every count?  I could add another wrinkle.  The conclusion doesn't actually follow.  I tell my son not to do things I know he'll do all the time.  Do you think that I or anyone else does this out of ignorance of the nature of our charges?

One cannot go about using the thoughts of others without acknowledgement that the thought is theirs, not yours, otherwise it is what is called plagiarism; I am not hiding under someone's skirt; I am using a tool that another holds the patent on, I cannot claim the tool to be mine, that is the law, but, the law per se did not make or move me to obey what it proscribes; to obey law is, for the most part simply doing nothing...and, if I am just generally doing nothing, it cannot readily be said that I am, in doing nothing, obeying a particular law...when people obey prohibitive law, they, once again, are really, actually, just doing nothing, the written law has no capacity to make a person do nothing, it is, like I told you before, the policemen with clubs and guns; the jails; the horror of going to court, the fines, the possible punishments, which are all why people "obey law", when, in fact they are simply avoiding all of the instruments of punishment, and, it is an illusion that they are obeying the language of law, that language cannot, by itself, accomplish acts … only men with clubs....
In the case with your son, you know that he will do what you prohibit, and, his life is not at stake for his so called disobedience...in the real hardball world of law, one's very life can be at risk for not obeying a law, so, then, when one is  at jeopardy of one's very life, that it becomes supra important to be absolutely truthful, i.e., in actual fact in the real world, all determination is negation, when the judge wants to take you life away in the name of a given law written on the books, while human action does not arise on the basis of given, factual states of affairs, it becomes seriously necessary to point the real facts of the origin of human conduct out to the judge, he is about to take your life, and, he thinks it is because of something someone has written in a book of law, and, he is fucking mistaken, big time, and your life is going down the tubes because everyone thinks books of law determine beings to act or not act, when, in fact, according to twentieth century thought, action upsurges totally otherwise....Negatio
I've never said anything about righteousness...you are saying some ''this'' makes my argument wrong, a damn powerful this !...no, you are doing it out of ignorance of the inefficacy of the language of law, not out of ignorance of your son's nature.  In the OPxI am always saying the language of law, language of law....it is not language of law which is an efficacy among men, nonetheless, it is by that language that the judge is going to take your life, he does not know he is mistaken about the putative efficacy of law either....

[The Grand Nudger]

Words and words and words.

Could've simply typed;

"Nuh uh, am too right!".

Your entire participation on the boards summed up in two short sentences.

"God's awfully dumb for a god"
and
"Nu uh!"

-interspersed with long intervals of complete incompetence.

---

Let's try another track.  If you think that language is so utterly devoid of compelling effect...why are you arguing a case against gods (or law) in the first place?

Take your time. An explanation to that nut is going to take some serious twisting of the scrotum.

[KevinM1]

Stymied again by the devil box!

It's the forum's AI, dontcha know