Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

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.

Yea, sure, I am going to stand before everyone on earth and say "God's awfully dumb for a God." Wow, that would be so profound that I would, without a doubt, win a Nobel prize, gee, why didn't I think of that.  No, Khemikcal, one's language at the philosophical level must be set forward consistently with the entire history of intelligible philosophical thought for thousands of years back.  I said language of law is without compelling effect. What compelling effect has my language had on the forum, on you just now, not much !  It is ideation, truthful ideation, that is compelling among men, and, language is ideation that can be compelling, but not determinative of human conduct, ever, because determination is negation, and, all given language is a given, not an absence, when, in fact we humans are determined to act by absences, not be stuff which is already here with us....I am exhausted and will not be able to write accurately...great, beautiful interchange Khemikal, I call it dialogical dialectic, but those words  are not mine, they come out of thousands of years of dialogical dialectic among persons.  Goodnight, Negatio.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yea, sure, I am going to stand before everyone on earth and say "God's awfully dumb for a God." Wow, that would be so profound that I would, without a doubt, win a Nobel prize, gee, why didn't I think of that.  No, Khemikcal, one's language at the philosophical level must be set forward consistently with the entire history of intelligible philosophical thought for thousands of years back. 

b-mine

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig. Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards and say that. You could say it in spanish, you could say it in swahili, you could say it in 50 thousand words. 6 will do, in any language, because it's what you intend to prove. That a god didn't know something that god ought to know. I don't think that you're wrong, but I know that you've given an exceedingly poor reason for that conclusion. 

I said language of law is without compelling effect. What compelling effect has my language had on the forum, on you just now, not much !  It is ideation, truthful ideation, that is compelling among men, and, language is ideation that can be compelling, but not determinative of human conduct, ever, because determination is negation, and, all given language is a given, not an absence, when, in fact we humans are determined to act by absences, not be stuff which is already here with us....I am exhausted and will not be able to write accurately...great, beautiful interchange Khemikal, I call it dialogical dialectic, but those words  are not mine, they come out of thousands of years of dialogical dialectic among persons.  Goodnight, Negatio.

People have been wrong about thousands of things for thousands of years, and people have been mangling their own arguments for thousands of years in a vain attempt to convince others that they aren't pigs with lipstick on. 

It would be possible to improve your argument while maintaining it's overall thrust, simultaneously communicating that argument in a clear and breif manner...you realize?

Your perpetual reassertion is the only thing standing in the way of that. Are you free to do otherwise? If you could demonstrate that you were it would add alot of credibility to your contentions. 123GO!

[Whateverist]

I see the wizard of oz is back behind the curtain blowing smoke and bellowing into his mike. Meh.

[Losty]

bellowing into his mike

[Whateverist]

bellowing into his mike

You are an artiste!

[negatio]

 

b-mine

Meh

Your charming common sense proverbs can be delightful and, very cryptic; now concerning the non-standard abbreviation "b-mine", what on earth is it supposed to denote?  Likewise for Meh, what is Meh saying to anyone?
Almost all of the language with which you address me is both cryptic, abstruse, and a kind of profound homespun common sense philosophy which, is so provincial, it makes it very difficult for a white boy originally from the big city to follow!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yea, sure, I am going to stand before everyone on earth and say "God's awfully dumb for a God." Wow, that would be so profound that I would, without a doubt, win a Nobel prize, gee, why didn't I think of that.  No, Khemikcal, one's language at the philosophical level must be set forward consistently with the entire history of intelligible philosophical thought for thousands of years back. 

There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy.  That, along with sentence structure, seems to be something you didn't pick up in your 46 years of higher education.

Boru

[negatio]

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig.  Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards and say that.  You could say it in spanish, you could say it in swahili, you could say it in 50 thousand words.  6 will do, in any language, because it's what you intend to prove.  That a god didn't know something that god ought to know.  I don't think that you're wrong, but I know that you've given an exceedingly poor reason for that conclusion. 

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig. 
So, right now, upon the face of the earth, you are standing before me and saying I stood before everyone on the forum and said "Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig...but it's still a pig.  Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards, and say that.''
Odd, I know for an absolute certainty that I said no such thing to the forum !  Therefore, you have to be addressing me metaphorically; however, both the language and the method you very kindly address to me is, totally, and, I mean totally, supra-radically, more cryptic, abstruse, and thick, than anything I have ever, ever, said, even in my wildest dreams.  The metaphor is clearly an insult, even though the language thereof is unintelligible to me. Khemikal, an ongoing part of your responses has been insult after insult, especially in your role as  prosecuting attorney for the troll-superstition.
 Now, with the flippant insult that I presented a pig with lipstick-on to the forum, I take to be a flippant insult to my OP.  Just how goddamn motherfucking far do you think you are going to get with me, via flippant insult, in so far as perhaps, in future, being fast friends is concerned, by addressing me via such apparent nonsense, which is supposed to describe my behavior before this forum?  You are, undoubtedly, to me,  exhibiting yourself as being stuck-on-stupid !? You cannot clothe insult even in nonsensical language, the insult is unmistakable.  It is clear that you believe participation in the philosophy forum is achieved by insulting the other fellow, and, you are conflating insult with polemic !  I am both going to tell you to fuck-off, and, look forward to your explanation of your methodology of insult.  Are you acting in pursuit of fun?  It looks like trolling, because it is generating conflict/contention/alienation among at least two members, you and I. I cannot honestly tell you that I love the smell of flippant insult on the forum the first thing in the morning! Negatio.

---

Yea, sure, I am going to stand before everyone on earth and say "God's awfully dumb for a God." Wow, that would be so profound that I would, without a doubt, win a Nobel prize, gee, why didn't I think of that.  No, Khemikcal, one's language at the philosophical level must be set forward consistently with the entire history of intelligible philosophical thought for thousands of years back. 

There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy.  That, along with sentence structure, seems to be something you didn't pick up in your 46 years of higher education.

Boru

Thank you, absolutely correct, it would be Literature.  Duane

[Nine]

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..

[negatio]

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig.  Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards and say that.  You could say it in spanish, you could say it in swahili, you could say it in 50 thousand words.  6 will do, in any language, because it's what you intend to prove.  That a god didn't know something that god ought to know.  I don't think that you're wrong, but I know that you've given an exceedingly poor reason for that conclusion. 

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..but it's still a pig. 
So, right now, upon the face of the earth, you are standing before me and saying I stood before everyone on the forum and said "Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig...but it's still a pig.  Now, you -did- stand before everyone on the boards, and say that.''
Odd, I know for an absolute certainty that I said no such thing to the forum !  Therefore, you have to be addressing me metaphorically; however, both the language and the method you very kindly address to me is, totally, and, I mean totally, supra-radically, more cryptic, abstruse, and thick, than anything I have ever, ever, said, even in my wildest dreams.  The metaphor is clearly an insult, even though the language thereof is unintelligible to me. Khemikal, an ongoing part of your responses has been insult after insult, especially in your role as  prosecuting attorney for the troll-superstition.
 Now, with the flippant insult that I presented a pig with lipstick-on to the forum, I take to be a flippant insult to my OP.  Just how goddamn motherfucking far do you think you are going to get with me, via flippant insult, in so far as perhaps, in future, being fast friends is concerned, by addressing me via such apparent nonsense, which is supposed to describe my behavior before this forum?  You are, undoubtedly, to me,  exhibiting yourself as being stuck-on-stupid !? You cannot clothe insult even in nonsensical language, the insult is unmistakable.  It is clear that you believe participation in the philosophy forum is achieved by insulting the other fellow, and, you are conflating insult with polemic !  I am both going to tell you to fuck-off, and, look forward to your explanation of your methodology of insult.  Are you acting in pursuit of fun?  It looks like trolling, because it is generating conflict/contention/alienation among at least two members, you and I. I cannot honestly tell you that I love the smell of flippant insult on the forum the first thing in the morning! Negatio.

---

There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy.  That, along with sentence structure, seems to be something you didn't pick up in your 46 years of higher education.

Boru

Thank you, absolutely correct, it would be Literature.  Duane

Boru, Your pure assertion, absent an actual grammatical parsing of an example of one of my sentences, is meaningless; yea, sure, I cannot write a sentence !  What most everyone here on the  forum appear to be are persons who proceed via insult, and, will not allow Duane to be Duane; Duane always and constantly is being advised on how to be someone Other than himself, which is some wonderful Platonic Other having Being somewhere within an indeterminate ideality.  Duane, though a perfect writer, can never be a pure Platonic Idea. Negatio.

---

Meh, you can put lipstick on a pig..

Yes, in the real, actual world, one could indeed put lipstick on a swine; however Khemikal is metaphorically applying lipstick, not actually putting/applying lipstick.

What is "ABSOLUTELY HARAM" Nine ? Negatio.