ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[ScottA]

Another one hits the wall.

 

[marks]

Another one hits the wall.

Pretty interesting conversation, though! Stretches my brain!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

NO ONE IS DENYING THE DICTUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please read what I have actually posted rather than assuming I'm disagreeing with the philosophy itself.

No one missed your references to Spinoza or Sartre. I have repeatedly posted the relevant points, and pointed out why your application actually agrees with their dictum. Your conclusion is incorrect because your assumptions are false.

I never said you were. I am pointing out that to claim that JHVH presents law as a deterministic factor doesn't prove JHVH presents law as a deterministic factor. You're Begging the Question with this overly simple tautology.

You are presenting it as a GIVEN. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question. I have already addressed this fact repeatedly. All you have done is to simply repeat your baseless assertions. Your response was simply to assert that one doesn't need to actually look at JHVH's position as it appears in the texts to know that this is his position. It's is a blatantly preposterous defense.
As a comparable example, I could say that you are positing that Spinoza and Sartre are pointing out that JHVH presents his laws to point out the ontology of humanity. This is your position, right? No, of course this isn't your position, but we needn't be bothered with what you actually wrote because according to your logic, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the dictum be applied to your writings regardless of what you actually wrote.

Your logic isn't logical at all. You've already admitted that the dictum may be applied to the biblical god regardless of what the authors have presented. It only matters that this strawman argument be repeated until people address it.

You're engaging in Ad Hominem here. This is an accusation without any support whatsoever. You're simply ignoring what I've posted.

I'm not dismissing it based upon scripture. I'm refuting it based upon the fact that you admit that your own assertions have no correspondence to the topic of the OP to begin with. You admit that it doesn't matter that God doesn't actually present the law as a determinative factor. It only matters that this strawman can be refuted by your application of Spinoza's dictum. No one is impressed by this in the slightest. It is neither radical, beautiful, or irrefutable.

This is blatant Ad Hominem, and trolling.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I am responding to each and every one of your points in one single post. It's not rocket science. Simply click and type.
Are you having trouble with the quoting process? Here's how they require quotes:
You type the word QUOTE in all caps.
Then you place this at the end of each quote:

The first example has no slash mark, and goes in front of the quote, while the second one goes after it.

I'm not engaging in Ad Hominem. How about extending the same courtesy, and addressing the arguments I've actually presented instead?[/QUOTE]
shnarkle;
Once again, you have misread, misconstrued, my position, and, tried to put me out on a limb and, then, cut it off.

My argument:

All determination is negation. (Spinoza; Hegel; Heidegger; Sartre).

Nonetheless, Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law.

Jehovah thereby exhibits that He does NOT realize that all human determination is negation, and, thereby, demonstrates that He is not higher, i.e., not deity to the human beings which he putatively created, else he would have known all human determination to action/inaction is negation.

Hence:

The original premise is not repeated in the conclusion; rather, an ascription of the absence of knowledge of the original premise is what appears in the conclusion; the conclusion enunciates the negative, the lack/absence/nihilation, of the original premise, thus, there is no repetition/appearance of the original premise in the conclusion.

The significance of Jehovah's misconduct is that our entire world-wide civilization is currently predicated/based upon Jehovah's incorrect approach to constituting a human civilization, via language of law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human beings to act or not act. Our actions originate acausally, not on the basis of published law, and, our existential absurdity consists in being beings for whom all determination is negation and who, nonetheless, mistakenly claim givens like law to be causal determinants of our deeds.

Your overzealous and radically stretched, maligned, mistaken, false attempts to ascribe fallacy to my reasoning, is becoming extremely silly/tiresome/scary.

I have radically enjoyed my interactions here with you beautiful Christians; however, I do not find anyone here who can authentically interact with me on the level of a demi-god; so, I am taking my marbles and going away...
Duane

 

[ScottA]

shnarkle;
Once again, you have misread, misconstrued, my position, and, tried to put me out on a limb and, then, cut it off.

My argument:

All determination is negation. (Spinoza; Hegel; Heidegger; Sartre).

Nonetheless, Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law.

Jehovah thereby exhibits that He does NOT realize that all human determination is negation, and, thereby, demonstrates that He is not higher, i.e., not deity to the human beings which he putatively created, else he would have known all human determination to action/inaction is negation.

Hence:

The original premise is not repeated in the conclusion; rather, an ascription of the absence of knowledge of the original premise is what appears in the conclusion; the conclusion enunciates the negative, the lack/absence/nihilation, of the original premise, thus, there is no repetition/appearance of the original premise in the conclusion.

The significance of Jehovah's misconduct is that our entire world-wide civilization is currently predicated/based upon Jehovah's incorrect approach to constituting a human civilization, via language of law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human beings to act or not act. Our actions originate acausally, not on the basis of published law, and, our existential absurdity consists in being beings for whom all determination is negation and who, nonetheless, mistakenly claim givens like law to be causal determinants of our deeds.

Your overzealous and radically stretched, maligned, mistaken, attempts to ascribe fallacy to my reasoning is becoming extremely silly/tiresome/scary.
Duane

Your argument is full of holes of mere speculation (above in RED), rendering your supposition meaningless.

 

[Steve Owen]

I tend to find in discussions of this sort, there is a faulty statement made early on which negates the whole argument that follows.

2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter.........

This is your view. You are entitled to your opinion, but the authentic omnipotent God might disagree with you. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him' (Psalms 115:3). If He wishes to demand that man determine himself, or not, He is not going to ask your permission to do so. 'Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?" For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen' (Romans 11:33-36). It is the wisdom of God that the world, through its wisdom will not know God (1 Corinthians 1:21).

As one who was an agnostic for many years, I can tell you that you will find out nothing about God through philosophy. The first step to discovering God is humility, which does not come naturally to humans, and especially not to those with a bent towards philosophy. After humility, a patient seeking after Him through His word will reveal Him to you if you are genuine. Encourage yourself with Deuteronomy 4:29 and Luke 11:9-13.

Oh yes; and why would I care what Sartre wrote when at the end of his life he admitted that his philosophy didn't work?

 

[shnarkle]

Once again, you have misread, misconstrued, my position, and, tried to put me out on a limb and, then, cut it off.

Defend your position then. You're simply asserting a claim with nothing to back it up. The false assumption is in your description of YHVH. You keep repeating this false claim with nothing to back it up. Here it is again: "Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law."

This is false. Document it or accept the fact that this is pure nonsense. Plug your claim into the biblical text so we can see where you're getting these ideas from. No high school teacher would accept these claims without documentation. Forget about college or universities anywhere in the country from ever giving it a second glance before tossing it into the trash. Without anything to document your claims, your thesis has no merit.

I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning to see that this probably isn't your idea at all as you have nothing to back it up. Simply restating your argument as if we didn't understand it, doesn't advance your argument.

My argument:All determination is negation. (Spinoza; Hegel; Heidegger; Sartre).

We haven't forgotten your argument. Repeating it doesn't advance your argument. Are you attempting to bore us from your topic?

Jehovah thereby exhibits that He does NOT realize that all human determination is negation, and, thereby, demonstrates that He is not higher, i.e., not deity to the human beings which he putatively created, else he would have known all human determination to action/inaction is negation.

This clearly follows from your premise. The problem is that your premise is unproven. You have nothing to document that your premise is true. I have presented evidence to prove that it is false which you have spurned. Instead, you simply repeat your premise as if it is self evident. It clearly isn't. Document your claims, or concede the fact that you have no argument.

Hence:The original premise is not repeated in the conclusion;

The original premise is false, and proven with evidence I supplied for your edification to be blatantly false. Therefore your conclusions are also false. They do not follow. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. You are Begging the Question by asserting a premise that is nowhere proven. You simply assume it to be true.

The significance of Jehovah's misconduct...

There is nothing significant about Jehovah's misconduct because there is no misconduct to begin with. You haven't presented any evidence of misconduct. Present the evidence of misconduct. Simply making these accusations doesn't cut it. Document where you're getting this idea from. Given that you have yet to read the texts in question, this could take a while.

language of law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human beings to act or not act.

This is essentially no different than what Paul points out in his letters. He points out that the law cannot motivate us to follow God's laws. He also points out that the law is abolished in Christ. So you're quite a bit behind the curve already. You think you've come up with some revolutionary claims here, but Paul made the same point almost 2000 years ago. Spinoza and Sartre are simply affirming what he already pointed out as well. Congratulations for making this discovery on your own, but we already knew about it because we read more than just Spinoza or Sartre.

Our actions originate acausally, not on the basis of published law, and, our existential absurdity consists in being beings for whom all determination is negation and who, nonetheless, mistakenly claim givens like law to be causal determinants of our deeds.

Again, you're not advancing an argument here. You're repeating yourself again. Please document where you think these ideas came from. My suspicion is that you can't actually document it from the biblical texts, but must come up with some interpretation from Spinoza, or Sartre. We'd be interested in that if you think you can find it.

Your overzealous and radically stretched, maligned, mistaken, false attempts to ascribe fallacy to my reasoning, is becoming extremely silly/tiresome/scary.

How about just documenting your reasons for this premise? I've already provided you with a number of citations from the texts themselves to prove it false. You have made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to address them. We're all beginning to see why.

I have radically enjoyed my interactions here with you beautiful Christians; however, I do not find anyone here who can authentically interact with me on the level of a demi-god; so, I am taking my marbles and going away...
Duane

Perhaps when you're ready to interact with the pure bred gods, we'll let you interact in a real discussion. Until then, it is probably best that you take better care lest you lose your marbles.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I tend to find in discussions of this sort, there is a faulty statement made early on which negates the whole argument that follows.
This is your view. You are entitled to your opinion, but the authentic omnipotent God might disagree with you. 'But our God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him' (Psalms 115:3). If He wishes to demand that man determine himself, or not, He is not going to ask your permission to do so. 'Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?" For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen' (Romans 11:33-36). It is the wisdom of God that the world, through its wisdom will not know God (1 Corinthians 1:21).

As one who was an agnostic for many years, I can tell you that you will find out nothing about God through philosophy. The first step to discovering God is humility, which does not come naturally to humans, and especially not to those with a bent towards philosophy. After humility, a patient seeking after Him through His word will reveal Him to you if you are genuine. Encourage yourself with Deuteronomy 4:29 and Luke 11:9-13.

Oh yes; and why would I care what Sartre wrote when at the end of his life he admitted that his philosophy didn't work?

Steve;
''...Sartre wrote... at the end of his life he admitted that his philosophy didn't work...'' Likely a falsity. Can you supply a reference for the alleged statement?
Sartre considered himself an ideaologist, not a philosopher positing philosophy.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

Steve;
''...Sartre wrote... at the end of his life he admitted that his philosophy didn't work...'' Likely a falsity. Can you supply a reference for the alleged statement?
Sartre considered himself an ideaologist, not a philosopher positing philosophy.
Duane

Go into any bookstore, and Sartre will be found under philosophy. While the story of his death bed conversion lacks some credibility, his mistress is claimed to have noted that he had lost his mind. What is irrefutable is the fact that Sartre did in fact reconsider his views of God the last few years of his life. It isn't clear that this led to anything approaching a conversion. We just don't know.

Glad to see you've found something to post though, even if it will probably never have anything to do with your own topic.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Defend your position then. You're simply asserting a claim with nothing to back it up. The false assumption is in your description of YHVH. You keep repeating this false claim with nothing to back it up. Here it is again: "Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law."

This is false. Document it or accept the fact that this is pure nonsense. Plug your claim into the biblical text so we can see where you're getting these ideas from. No high school teacher would accept these claims without documentation. Forget about college or universities anywhere in the country from ever giving it a second glance before tossing it into the trash. Without anything to document your claims, your thesis has no merit.

I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning to see that this probably isn't your idea at all as you have nothing to back it up. Simply restating your argument as if we didn't understand it, doesn't advance your argument.

We haven't forgotten your argument. Repeating it doesn't advance your argument. Are you attempting to bore us from your topic?

This clearly follows from your premise. The problem is that your premise is unproven. You have nothing to document that your premise is true. I have presented evidence to prove that it is false which you have spurned. Instead, you simply repeat your premise as if it is self evident. It clearly isn't. Document your claims, or concede the fact that you have no argument.

The original premise is false, and proven with evidence I supplied for your edification to be blatantly false. Therefore your conclusions are also false. They do not follow. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. You are Begging the Question by asserting a premise that is nowhere proven. You simply assume it to be true.

There is nothing significant about Jehovah's misconduct because there is no misconduct to begin with. You haven't presented any evidence of misconduct. Present the evidence of misconduct. Simply making these accusations doesn't cut it. Document where you're getting this idea from. Given that you have yet to read the texts in question, this could take a while.

This is essentially no different than what Paul points out in his letters. He points out that the law cannot motivate us to follow God's laws. He also points out that the law is abolished in Christ. So you're quite a bit behind the curve already. You think you've come up with some revolutionary claims here, but Paul made the same point almost 2000 years ago. Spinoza and Sartre are simply affirming what he already pointed out as well. Congratulations for making this discovery on your own, but we already knew about it because we read more than just Spinoza or Sartre.

Again, you're not advancing an argument here. You're repeating yourself again. Please document where you think these ideas came from. My suspicion is that you can't actually document it from the biblical texts, but must come up with some interpretation from Spinoza, or Sartre. We'd be interested in that if you think you can find it.

How about just documenting your reasons for this premise? I've already provided you with a number of citations from the texts themselves to prove it false. You have made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to address them. We're all beginning to see why.

Perhaps when you're ready to interact with the pure bred gods, we'll let you interact in a real discussion. Until then, it is probably best that you take better care lest you lose your marbles.

shnarkle;
You are continually, grandly, suffocatively, going off half-cocked with mistaken ascriptions of fault and unreasonable/unreasoned demands. I just now rationally supplied you with the subtle differential status of my premise per opening versus its nihilation at conclusion, and, nonetheless, you continue with an endless tsunami of boring and confused tirade...your immature insistences are too too rash/ill-advised. All of my sources are referenced at the bottom of the major text available via the link I supplied to Amadeus...The Bible is not an authoritative reference entity of verifiable historicity.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Go into any bookstore, and Sartre will be found under philosophy. While the story of his death bed conversion lacks some credibility, his mistress is claimed to have noted that he had lost his mind. What is irrefutable is the fact that Sartre did in fact reconsider his views of God the last few years of his life. It isn't clear that this led to anything approaching a conversion. We just don't know.

Glad to see you've found something to post though, even if it will probably never have anything to do with your own topic.

It does not matter how bookstores categorize Sartre. In his "Search for a Method'' he explains he is an ideaologist and disdained being deemed philosopher...he was a Marxist and called Marx a philosopher...

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle;
You are continually, grandly, suffocatively, going off half-cocked with mistaken ascriptions of fault and unreasonable/unreasoned demands.

More deflection with Ad Hominem? Why is this not surprising? I'm simply asking you to document your claims. This isn't complicated. You're making a claim about JHVH. We can both agree that the bible is not a reputable authority for JHVH, and certainly not worthy of being referred to as accurate history. This is all beside the point. You're simply claiming that JHVH is doing something based upon pure conjecture. You make no claims to support these assertions You simply ignore this fact.

What's even more bizarre is that you don't even have to make this pointless premise in the first place. For some reason, this has escaped your notice. The fact that you feel this need to repeatedly keep harping on it only spotlights that you have some petty axe to grind with the biblical God. Nobody cares to hear you parrot an argument that is already 2000 years old as if you just discovered something revolutionary. Clouding it in word salad only makes it look pointlessly sophomoric.

I just now rationally supplied you with the subtle differential status of my premise

We're not asking for a subtle differential status of your premise, and there's nothing subtle about it anyways. It's blatantly, and transparently ridiculous, not to mention insulting to those of us who know how to follow in depth arguments.

We're asking why you are coming up with this premise in the first place. Where are you getting this idea from? You seem to be simply conjuring it up from your own personal bias which is not the best place to begin with, nor will it render your conclusions valid.

So now we're supposed to search through three pages of posts to find a link to another site and then search through those posts as well to find your sources? Yeah, right. You've proven yourself time and again to be a wanna-be troll.

Thanks for confirming that you have nothing to back up your claims. Your self congratulatory, self adulation over your ability to barf endless streams of word salad aren't fooling anyone. They're blatantly unnecessary, and we both know it. My third grade English teacher would have crossed out 90% of it, and written "unnecessarily wordy" across the front followed by "rewrite this in two paragraphs, and then develop it with support"

No one here is ignorant of Spinoza or Sartre's position or their philosophy of negation. In fact, I even pointed out a number of other sources within Christian theology which essentially state the EXACT SAME arguments. The only difference being that they don't begin with some asinine premise that can't be defended. They don't have to. They don't need some petty axe to grind to make a valid point. It's pointlessly distracting, and blatantly irrelevant.

I've humored you long enough. We both know you have no intention of ever addressing or supporting your premise, so there's no point in risking boring my self to brain damage with your pointless repetitive Ad Hominem, Strawman, etc. fallacies.

 

[shnarkle]

It does not matter how bookstores categorize Sartre.

It matters if you're looking for a book by him.

In his "Search for a Method'' he explains he is an ideaologist and disdained being deemed philosopher...he was a Marxist and called Marx a philosopher...

Except he fell away from Marxism, and was roundly condemned by his contemporaries for being a spine-donor. His friends knew him pretty well. They had him pegged.

 

[shnarkle]

He already has. This is a snippet of a much longer post on a philosophy forum.

Some interesting responses, btw. The basically discredit his foundational statements, at least, in what little I looked at.

Much love!

After I repeatedly requested that he provide something to support his original premise, he finally suggested I view a link from a philosophy forum. I did out of curiosity, but (big surprise, not) no documentation whatsoever.

However, I did start reading what others had posted in response to his post, and noticed that they were not only easily dismantling his argument, but doing it with such deft precision, he was able to nothing except balk with the most uninspired trolling I've seen since I was in the second grade.

The only thing more interesting than how well they destroyed his feeble argument was the quite insightful and witty trolling evident among them. It was quite entertaining to see them dig in and hook him so easily.

There's only two pages of posts. It's really worth it read all of them. It reminds me of a death from a thousand cuts.

 

[Waiting on him]

Amadeus;
Yes, there is some ilk of intelligence which structures the universe we inhabit, and, that intelligence is infinitely beyond our small capacity to understand what we are and where we are, an inscrutable intelligence which, nonetheless, we incrementially unconceal, bit by bit. We are radically childish to think that the inscrutable intelligence inherent to the upsurge of our universe, and, of ourselves, is Jehovah/Christ, especially since, given what we now know about our own ontological structure, it can be shown that Jehovah/Christ have not exhibited a familiarity with our human ontological structuration, and, thus, Jehovah/Christ are not, cannot, be deity. Deity being that which is above/higher than we humans...

It is a hateful deed to proclaim that I am deceived simply because scripture claims it to be the case, while, all the while, I have shown scripture to be in fatal error. Christians are so incredibly stuck/frozen in a predetermined mode of belief, that it is nauseating from my particular perspectival view.
Duane

The first example has no slash mark, and goes in front of the quote, while the second one goes after it.

I'm not engaging in Ad Hominem. How about extending the same courtesy, and addressing the arguments I've actually presented instead?

shnarkle;
Once again, you have misread, misconstrued, my position, and, tried to put me out on a limb and, then, cut it off.

My argument:

All determination is negation. (Spinoza; Hegel; Heidegger; Sartre).

Nonetheless, Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law.

Jehovah thereby exhibits that He does NOT realize that all human determination is negation, and, thereby, demonstrates that He is not higher, i.e., not deity to the human beings which he putatively created, else he would have known all human determination to action/inaction is negation.

Hence:

The original premise is not repeated in the conclusion; rather, an ascription of the absence of knowledge of the original premise is what appears in the conclusion; the conclusion enunciates the negative, the lack/absence/nihilation, of the original premise, thus, there is no repetition/appearance of the original premise in the conclusion.

The significance of Jehovah's misconduct is that our entire world-wide civilization is currently predicated/based upon Jehovah's incorrect approach to constituting a human civilization, via language of law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human beings to act or not act. Our actions originate acausally, not on the basis of published law, and, our existential absurdity consists in being beings for whom all determination is negation and who, nonetheless, mistakenly claim givens like law to be causal determinants of our deeds.

Your overzealous and radically stretched, maligned, mistaken, false attempts to ascribe fallacy to my reasoning, is becoming extremely silly/tiresome/scary.

I have radically enjoyed my interactions here with you beautiful Christians; however, I do not find anyone here who can authentically interact with me on the level of a demi-god; so, I am taking my marbles and going away...
Duane[/QUOTE]
You remind me of the native Americans, they lined their fire pits with iron ore they extracted from the ground to paint their faces with....but some how never came into the Iron Age.

 

[Enoch111]

I did out of curiosity, but (big surprise, not) no documentation whatsoever.

How do you expect documentation for pure fantasies? Why is anyone wasting time in this thread?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

More deflection with Ad Hominem? Why is this not surprising? I'm simply asking you to document your claims. This isn't complicated. You're making a claim about JHVH. We can both agree that the bible is not a reputable authority for JHVH, and certainly not worthy of being referred to as accurate history. This is all beside the point. You're simply claiming that JHVH is doing something based upon pure conjecture. You make no claims to support these assertions You simply ignore this fact.

What's even more bizarre is that you don't even have to make this pointless premise in the first place. For some reason, this has escaped your notice. The fact that you feel this need to repeatedly keep harping on it only spotlights that you have some petty axe to grind with the biblical God. Nobody cares to hear you parrot an argument that is already 2000 years old as if you just discovered something revolutionary. Clouding it in word salad only makes it look pointlessly sophomoric.



We're not asking for a subtle differential status of your premise, and there's nothing subtle about it anyways. It's blatantly, and transparently ridiculous, not to mention insulting to those of us who know how to follow in depth arguments.

We're asking why you are coming up with this premise in the first place. Where are you getting this idea from? You seem to be simply conjuring it up from your own personal bias which is not the best place to begin with, nor will it render your conclusions valid.

So now we're supposed to search through three pages of posts to find a link to another site and then search through those posts as well to find your sources? Yeah, right. You've proven yourself time and again to be a wanna-be troll.

Thanks for confirming that you have nothing to back up your claims. Your self congratulatory, self adulation over your ability to barf endless streams of word salad aren't fooling anyone. They're blatantly unnecessary, and we both know it. My third grade English teacher would have crossed out 90% of it, and written "unnecessarily wordy" across the front followed by "rewrite this in two paragraphs, and then develop it with support"

No one here is ignorant of Spinoza or Sartre's position or their philosophy of negation. In fact, I even pointed out a number of other sources within Christian theology which essentially state the EXACT SAME arguments. The only difference being that they don't begin with some asinine premise that can't be defended. They don't have to. They don't need some petty axe to grind to make a valid point. It's pointlessly distracting, and blatantly irrelevant.

I've humored you long enough. We both know you have no intention of ever addressing or supporting your premise, so there's no point in risking boring my self to brain damage with your pointless repetitive Ad Hominem, Strawman, etc. fallacies.

Congratulations on being a legend in your own mind. We're all so impressed that you've decided to grace us with your overwhelmingly inflated, yet seriously overstretched, and thus rapidly deteriorating ego.

I accurately summed up your pointless wall of text into a couple short paragraphs because being bored into a stupor by a bloviating gas bag isn't necessary to present a simple argument.

My powers of prognostication reveal that you will now revive your persecution complex as you hypocritically lash out with accusations of Ad Hominem. Again, I am simply repaying you in your own coin with interest.

The central thesis is my original thinking/thought and is referenceable only in so far as I stand on the shoulders of others who's original insights provide the soil out of which my original realization grew.

None of your biblical prophets have posited my arguments and you are dead wrong in saying that they have; mine is indeed original thinking which cannot be supported by textual reference, it stands upon reason.

Your constant insult exhibits a lack of Christian charity and is foolish in the face of my genuine originality.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Defend your position then. You're simply asserting a claim with nothing to back it up. The false assumption is in your description of YHVH. You keep repeating this false claim with nothing to back it up. Here it is again: "Jehovah posited law, a positive given state of affairs, which law he deemed efficient to determine humans to inaction/action; then, He mistakenly severely punished persons for not being determined not to act by a non-determinative language of law."

This is false. Document it or accept the fact that this is pure nonsense. Plug your claim into the biblical text so we can see where you're getting these ideas from. No high school teacher would accept these claims without documentation. Forget about college or universities anywhere in the country from ever giving it a second glance before tossing it into the trash. Without anything to document your claims, your thesis has no merit.

I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning to see that this probably isn't your idea at all as you have nothing to back it up. Simply restating your argument as if we didn't understand it, doesn't advance your argument.

We haven't forgotten your argument. Repeating it doesn't advance your argument. Are you attempting to bore us from your topic?

This clearly follows from your premise. The problem is that your premise is unproven. You have nothing to document that your premise is true. I have presented evidence to prove that it is false which you have spurned. Instead, you simply repeat your premise as if it is self evident. It clearly isn't. Document your claims, or concede the fact that you have no argument.

The original premise is false, and proven with evidence I supplied for your edification to be blatantly false. Therefore your conclusions are also false. They do not follow. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. You are Begging the Question by asserting a premise that is nowhere proven. You simply assume it to be true.

There is nothing significant about Jehovah's misconduct because there is no misconduct to begin with. You haven't presented any evidence of misconduct. Present the evidence of misconduct. Simply making these accusations doesn't cut it. Document where you're getting this idea from. Given that you have yet to read the texts in question, this could take a while.

This is essentially no different than what Paul points out in his letters. He points out that the law cannot motivate us to follow God's laws. He also points out that the law is abolished in Christ. So you're quite a bit behind the curve already. You think you've come up with some revolutionary claims here, but Paul made the same point almost 2000 years ago. Spinoza and Sartre are simply affirming what he already pointed out as well. Congratulations for making this discovery on your own, but we already knew about it because we read more than just Spinoza or Sartre.

Again, you're not advancing an argument here. You're repeating yourself again. Please document where you think these ideas came from. My suspicion is that you can't actually document it from the biblical texts, but must come up with some interpretation from Spinoza, or Sartre. We'd be interested in that if you think you can find it.

How about just documenting your reasons for this premise? I've already provided you with a number of citations from the texts themselves to prove it false. You have made NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to address them. We're all beginning to see why.

Perhaps when you're ready to interact with the pure bred gods, we'll let you interact in a real discussion. Until then, it is probably best that you take better care lest you lose your marbles.

shnarkle;
Per the Bible it is reported, by persons who were not there, that Jehovah issued thou shalt not prohibitions, and, then, punishments to Adam and Eve; and, subsequently, through Moses, issued Law as Ten Commandments...these are the incidents of Jehovah positing law and punishment whereupon I base my contention that Jehovah employed law as a mode of relating to man.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

The central thesis is my original thinking/thought and is referenceable only in so far as I stand on the shoulders of others who's original insights provide the soil out of which my original realization grew.

There's nothing original about your posts, and certainly nothing that comes close to a realization. Your posts are swallowed up like quicksand engulfing your false premises, and leaving only the dictum which no one really denies in the first place. Your feeble attempts to wrap a patently absurd premise in the cloak of those who were genuinely original thinkers is about as pathetic as a third grader passing off the Declaration of Independence as his own creation.

None of your biblical prophets have posited my arguments and you are dead wrong in saying that they have;

Not only have they presented essentially the exact same points, numerous theologians, mystics, and scholars have affirmed them. I've posted the relevant passages from the texts for your edification which you have repeatedly ignored. Not exactly what one would expect from someone genuinely engaged in philosophical pursuits, and a notorious display of fatal hubris for anyone presenting a scholarly treatise.

The supreme irony is in your profound ignorance of the fact that JHVH's laws are summed up in a decalogue notorious for its conspicuous use of negation. One doesn't need to do anything to obey them! I'm on the verge of tears, I'm laughing so hard right now, I can't believe someone can be so utterly ignorant of what is still somewhat common knowledge even among students in our failing public school system. Anyone older than 30 ignoring something so obvious is simply engaging in a stubborn refusal to accept what no one can meaningfully deny.

mine is indeed original thinking which cannot be supported by textual reference,

Especially when one insists on ignoring those textual references. It cannot be supported by logic either.

it stands upon reason.

It is intellectually crippled, and cannot stand upon anything other than pure incoherent blind faith. You're premise has been repeatedly disproven here with textual references as well as on the philosophy site which mercilessly cut your claims off at the knees.

Your constant insult exhibits a lack of Christian charity and is foolish in the face of my genuine originality.

Yet more Ad Hominem from the peanut gallery. Now the agnostic presumes to recognize Christian charity. You determined this based upon negation, or the laws held by Christians? I can assure you there is no Christian charity lacking on my part as there is none to begin with. Again, I am simply repaying you in your own coin. These asinine transactions can cease whenever you're ready to follow your own dictum. Evidently, you have other laws that take precedence over what you thought you had realized.

There is nothing genuine or original in you or your posts. I can only thank you for suggesting I check out the link you provided (which we both knew would provide nothing in the way of textual support for this self indulgent slop). The comments of those responding to your posts were extremely enlightening in their ability to completely destroy your facile ramblings. Their ability to hook you with their trolling was also quite impressive, while your hopelessly uninspired retorts were enough to make me take pity on you for a moment. It was truly sad, like watching the futile attempts of a sloth caught in a boa constrictor as it slowly squeezes the life from its intellectually atrophied lungs.

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle;
Per the Bible it is reported, by persons who were not there,

I think we can both safely assume that when the fictional deity is bringing the cosmos into being, it is highly unlikely that anyone else was there. Do you feel this compulsion to point out that actual people don't exist in any other works of fiction under discussion? Do you feel the need to point out that the characters in the latest John Grisham tale aren't actually real people? What is it that compels you to point out the obvious while ignoring it when it refutes your cherished beliefs?

that Jehovah issued thou shalt not prohibitions,

And you still don't see the incredible irony in the fact that they're negations??? Do you still not fathom the fact that they originate in negation??? There is nothing to do. They need not do anything. It is right in line with the dictum.

and, then, punishments to Adam and Eve;

This is simply your own interpretation of the texts. He could have just as easily said, "Grab an apple on your way out", but then that wouldn't have followed the dictum of negation, would it? Nope. Instead, JHVH followed the dictum of negation which you are blatantly ignoring. It's right there in black and white in ANY bible you choose to look at. Adam and Eve need not do anything! There is nothing to do. This is the order of the day, in the day they were created reflecting their creator.

and, subsequently, through Moses, issued Law as Ten Commandments.

Again, given that God is the origin of existence, God logically cannot exist, and therefore the positive commands referring to God are necessarily negations due to the fact that God doesn't objectively exist in creation; while the remaining negative commandments are right in line with the dictum.

..these are the incidents of Jehovah positing law and punishment[

The so-called "punishments" are VIOLATIONS of the dictum.

whereupon I base my contention that Jehovah employed law as a mode of relating to man.

Again, a blatant non sequitur. God is the origin of everything that exists. The origin is EMPTIED (a process of negation!!!) into the means of existence which in turn is EMPTIED (again this same exact process of negation) into the cosmos. LOOK around at the cosmos as well as at sub atomic particles, and what do you see? Vast amounts of empty space. A whole lot of nothing.

Adam is CREATED as an ontological reflection of JHVH. He's created in, with, and through this relationship. No laws necessary, and no laws presented except one of NEGATION which Adam can only obey by NEGATION. He can only obey it by NOT transgressing it. To transgress is to VIOLATE the dictum.

Once that happens, Adam no longer operates or functions by the dictum of negation, but instead is mediating reality epistemologically. He is no longer authentic to his ontological state, but rather fallen into the error of an epistemological activity (e.g. "knowledge" Genesis 2:17). This is the antithesis of the dictum of negation!

The authors explicitly point out that to imagine anything about JHVH is to violate the dictum!!! You've done just that, and admitted the fact repeatedly. Your premise is firmly planted in mid air, and has already dissipated into nothing but straw. It is blatantly incoherent.

 

[Steve Owen]

Steve;
''...Sartre wrote... at the end of his life he admitted that his philosophy didn't work...'' Likely a falsity. Can you supply a reference for the alleged statement?
Sartre considered himself an ideaologist, not a philosopher positing philosophy.
Duane

You are the one who brought up Sartre, not I. I think you may find something along the lines of what I wrote in one of his autobiographies, where he speaks of the ‘absence’ of God rather than God’s non-existence. In the same work he also refers to God as an ‘old flame’ and to atheism as a ‘cruel, long-term business'. Basically, he was saying that his philosophy (ideas, if you prefer) brought him no comfort as an old man.

I seem to recall another quote by him saying that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God yet cannot stop talking about him.