Ontological Disproof of God

[Losty]

I wasn’t being snide, I was being honest. I got tired of editing your posts. I’m not going to do it anymore. It doesn’t really matter now that you’ve shown yourself to be for sure a troll I doubt you’ll last long. ~the very unethical ignoble Losty

[negatio]

I wasn’t being snide, I was being honest. I got tired of editing your posts. I’m not going to do it anymore. It doesn’t really matter now that you’ve shown yourself to be for sure a troll I doubt you’ll last long. ~the very unethical ignoble Losty

Members clearly have a large prejudice against any other member helping a newbie figure out code, and, at the same time, are eager to lynch a newbie who screws up code, nonetheless, I am now asking for your honest opinion: Am I coding correctly now?

Troll, troll, troll; you are a troll, you are a troll; jesus, that is all I ever hear around here.  I am not a fucking troll! What I am, as a result of horrid member misconduct, is an abused and pissed off Junior Member.

I merely wish to engage in dialogical dialectic on the philosophy sector of this forum; however, I have been constantly assailed in terms of this troll horseshit for three weeks, and, I am so alienated and angry that I am reciprocating the assault.  This has been a horrid experience, and, I both want to stay, and, to leave. N.

[brewer]

Members clearly have a large prejudice against any other member helping a newbie figure out code, and, at the same time, are eager to lynch a newbie who screws up code, nonetheless, I am now asking for your honest opinion: Am I coding correctly now?  Negatio.

You left out lynching for screwing up philosophy and mangling the word truth.

[vulcanlogician]

[negatio]

[vulcanlogician]

Make sense ?

Sort of. But you know what logos means, right?

Quite plainly it means "to communicate" or "to speak aloud." So to be "logical" is not only to be clear in one's thinking, but also clear in one's communication-- or one's "speaking aloud." In essence, there is no logic transpiring unless one can be understood.

My advice to you is to do the necessary work to make your proof understandable by others. As is, your proof is constructed to only make sense to you. But that's not what a genuine proof ought to be. A genuine proof is one's own logic that is made understandable to others. Philosophy is not masterbation, after all. If others can't possibly understand it, then no "speaking aloud" has transpired... and thus no logic has transpired... despite all the thinking that has been done.

[LadyForCamus]

I wasn’t being snide, I was being honest. I got tired of editing your posts. I’m not going to do it anymore. It doesn’t really matter now that you’ve shown yourself to be for sure a troll I doubt you’ll last long. ~the very unethical ignoble Losty

Members clearly have a large prejudice against any other member helping a newbie figure out code, and, at the same time, are eager to lynch a newbie who screws up code, nonetheless, I am now asking for your honest opinion: Am I coding correctly now?

Troll, troll, troll; you are a troll, you are a troll; jesus, that is all I ever hear around here.  I am not a fucking troll! What I am, as a result of horrid member misconduct, is an abused and pissed off Junior Member.

I merely wish to engage in dialogical dialectic on the philosophy sector of this forum; however, I have been constantly assailed in terms of this troll horseshit for three weeks, and, I am so alienated and angry that I am reciprocating the assault.  This has been a horrid experience, and, I both want to stay, and, to leave. N.

Then figure out how to operate the fucking forum; it’s been three god damn weeks.  If this has been that bad of an experience for you, then the logical thing to do would be to leave. If you stay, you are proving yourself to be a troll.  No sincere person bitches this much, yet keeps coming back for more.

[negatio]

Make sense ?

Sort of. But you know what logos means, right?

Quite plainly it means "to communicate" or "to speak aloud." So to be "logical" is not only to be clear in one's thinking, but also clear in one's communication-- or one's "speaking aloud." In essence, there is no logic transpiring unless one can be understood.

My advice to you is to do the necessary work to make your proof understandable by others. As is, your proof is constructed to only make sense to you. But that's not what a genuine proof ought to be. A genuine proof is one's own logic that is made understandable to others. Philosophy is not masterbation, after all. If others can't possibly understand it, then no "speaking aloud" has transpired... and thus no logic has transpired... despite all the thinking that has been done.

 I have made my disproof understandable to others, because the language wherein the disproof is cast is per se intelligible.  It will not be intelligible to all Others, for, all Others are not energetic enough, and, toughminded enough to apprehend what is, in fact, intelligible. 
My central task is to posit an intelligible language, not subject to future defeat; my responsibility is not, cannot possibly be, to reduce my language to being intelligible to every non-toughminded weakling.
If I eject/toss-away the authentic difficulty which is attendant upon my position, I subject my position to being killed by Other intellect.  If I make my position readily available to everyman, to every non-toughminded person, to weaklings, I thereby compromise the indefeasibility of my argument, by diluting the inherent defensive structure contained therein.  Negatio.

[KevinM1]

The substance of an argument is not somehow diluted by the manner in which it is communicated. That's a bullshit cop out. Try again. Or don't. I really don't care.

[Kitan Etos]

"Well then." is the most radically readily comprehensible terse reverse of the Khemikal obverse-Confucian type stupid wisdom, which, because, "Well then.", immediately follows a great-Duaneian tyrade, and is, thereby, totally and immediately intelligible, via being caught-up in the coattails of Duane's great expectations, regarding what ridiculous bullshit Khemikal, the great reverse sage, who enunciates stupidity in lieu of wisdom, will posit next. 


And, by virtue of Kit, and, Khemikal, being respectively coattail intelligible, and, reversely wise, Kit, and Khemikal are, hereby, awarded 250,000 advance anti-demerit points each, as insurance against the possibility of being subjected to possible Kafkaesque existentially absurd punishment, inflicted by the series pre-reflectively free inauthoritative ''staff'' authorities, who purposely both disrupt and destroy philosophical dialogical dialectical truth-generation, via ontologically unintelligibly disrupting the pursuit of knowledge within the philosophy forum, by enforcing destructive "Staff" law.

You don't say.