ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[shnarkle]

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.

This is a good point, especially in relation to this topic of negation. Others just like Sartre have pointed out this fine distinction which points out the omnipresence of God. In other words, it isn't the absence of God's presence, but the presence of his absence. It is an overwhelming refutation of the OP's premise as well as a prime example of just how much in agreement the dictum of negation is with the biblical JHVH.

Basically, he was saying that his philosophy (ideas, if you prefer) brought him no comfort as an old man.

Again, a pervasive theme throughout the bible where one's imagination can never lead anyone to God.

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.

Something he undoubtedly would have agreed with. Even if he didn't say it, it's quite accurate.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

You make naught but pure exceeding long winded assertion(s). Give the exact titles of the multiplicity of published works that enunciate precisely what I have set forth...I've really pissed you off because you are being an absolutely horrid jerk, and will assert absolutely any unfounded notion you can possibly conjure. You claim to be in contact with God, ask him to decide who is correct here! The alienation transpiring between us is really set in stone now, you have been horrid since the very first...
The state of affairs is so very simple. Your deity is overthrown at the theoretical level via fundamental reasoned description of the ontological structure of the origin of human action/forbearance, and, you can't handle it except to exhibit chronic ongoing fit, so sorry.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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.

I am pretty sure Sartre never wrote autobiographies; though there is a three volume list of titles of what he did write, I saw it once in a bookstore in Berkeley, CA..

I am agnostic, not atheistic, and, I do not continually talk about Him; for instance, see my one page critique of the notion of law entitled LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN. Here:
Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken - Philosophy Now Forum

 

[Enoch111]

I am agnostic, not atheistic...

Same difference. Mere semantics. You do not believe in the one true and living God, who is the Creator and Savior of the world. But whether you do or don't, you will stand before Him when He judges you.

 

[Waiting on him]

I am pretty sure Sartre never wrote autobiographies; though there is a three volume list of titles of what he did write, I saw it once in a bookstore in Berkeley, CA..

I am agnostic, not atheistic, and, I do not continually talk about Him; for instance, see my one page critique of the notion of law entitled LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN. Here:
Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken - Philosophy Now Forum

Greek: ἀγνοέω
Transliteration: agnoeō
Pronunciation: ag-no-eh'-o
Definition: From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication to ignore (through disinclination): - (be) ignorant (-ly) not know not understand unknown.
KJV Usage: be ignorant (7x), ignorant (4x), know not (4x), understand not (3x), ignorantly (2x), unknown (2x).
Occurs: 25
In verses: 21
Why do you people like to call yourselves ignorant?

 

[Waiting on him]

Same difference. Mere semantics. You do not believe in the one true and living God, who is the Creator and Savior of the world. But whether you do or don't, you will stand before Him when He judges you.

Leans more towards sophistry in my opinion

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Greek: ἀγνοέω
Transliteration: agnoeō
Pronunciation: ag-no-eh'-o
Definition: From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication to ignore (through disinclination): - (be) ignorant (-ly) not know not understand unknown.
KJV Usage: be ignorant (7x), ignorant (4x), know not (4x), understand not (3x), ignorantly (2x), unknown (2x).
Occurs: 25
In verses: 21
Why do you people like to call yourselves ignorant?

Waiting on Him;
Wow, Mr. Waiting, radically stimulating post. Now that I have shown that the Biblical prophets, who set-forth Jehovah as a/the one God, were merely pre-reflectively free persons, wholly unaware of the ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of their acts/ forbearances, wrote Jehovah as the author of a language of law, whereby He mistakenly intended to rule man, constitutes error at the ontological level of the structure of the being of being human, I cannot accurately characterize myself as an agnostic, for, I now demonstrate, indubitably, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, therefore, I need to christen a new term to designate one who knows, without doubt, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, is, merely, a mere mistaken man-made construct.

I am open to suggestions from a wordsmith like yourself regarding the construction of the requisite neologism...
Duane

 

[ScottA]

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

That is just wrong.

(If you don't have me on Ignore, because you are not able to meet an honest challenge)

Anyway...that is just wrong. It is all based on you assuming you are correct, when you are not, but are evaluating based on limited and inferior knowledge.

Your point of contention is in error, therefore your whole premise: God did not posit law and punishment for the reason(s) you have stated.

 

[Waiting on him]

Waiting on Him;
Wow, Mr. Waiting, radically stimulating post. Now that I have shown that the Biblical prophets, who set-forth Jehovah as a/the one God, were merely pre-reflectively free persons, wholly unaware of the ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of their acts/ forbearances, wrote Jehovah as the author of a language of law, whereby He mistakenly intended to rule man, constitutes error at the ontological level of the structure of the being of being human, I cannot accurately characterize myself as an agnostic, for, I now demonstrate, indubitably, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, therefore, I need to christen a new term to designate one who knows, without doube, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, is mere man-made construct. I am open to suggestions from a wordsmith like yourself.
Duane

I am agnostic, not atheistic, and, I do not continually talk about Him;
Make up your mind!!

 

[ScottA]

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

Good point. Try googling his name...very enlightening.

 

[Waiting on him]

Waiting on Him;
Wow, Mr. Waiting, radically stimulating post. Now that I have shown that the Biblical prophets, who set-forth Jehovah as a/the one God, were merely pre-reflectively free persons, wholly unaware of the ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of their acts/ forbearances, wrote Jehovah as the author of a language of law, whereby He mistakenly intended to rule man, constitutes error at the ontological level of the structure of the being of being human, I cannot accurately characterize myself as an agnostic, for, I now demonstrate, indubitably, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, therefore, I need to christen a new term to designate one who knows, without doubt, that Jehovah/Christ is not deity, and, is, merely, a mere man-made construct.

I am open to suggestions from a wordsmith like yourself regarding the construction of the requisite neologism...
Duane

I was going to post,

How about smart ass?
But I feel certain you’ve worn that title your entire life.

 

[ScottA]

I was going to post,

How about smart ass?
But I feel certain you’ve worn that title your entire life.

Oh, goodness, no...that's way too elementary! How about:

Intelliequusasinus

 

[Steve Owen]

I am agnostic, not atheistic

'Agnostic' is a word of Greek origin. The Latin equivalent is 'ignoramus.' I know; I used to be both.
I am happy to believe your assertion that you do not continually talk about God. I only observe that you have come onto a Christian website to talk about Him.

 

[Steve Owen]

I am pretty sure Sartre never wrote autobiographies

• Sartre By Himself / Sartre par lui-mème (1959)
• The Words / Les Mots (1964)[126]
• Witness to My Life & Quiet Moments in a War / Lettres au Castor et à quelques autres (1983)
• War Diaries: Notebooks from a Phony War / Les carnets de la drole de guerre (1984)

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

• Sartre By Himself / Sartre par lui-mème (1959)
• The Words / Les Mots (1964)[126]
• Witness to My Life & Quiet Moments in a War / Lettres au Castor et à quelques autres (1983)
• War Diaries: Notebooks from a Phony War / Les carnets de la drole de guerre (1984)

Wow, cool, thank you Steve Owen.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I was going to post,

How about smart ass?
But I feel certain you’ve worn that title your entire life.

Okay, smart ass; I am being serious here, while you joke about and thereby demonstrate you are merely a flippant joker and, not a serious student of Jehovah/Christ's questionable authenticity. Okay, later,silly alligator....goodbye flippy clown boy...
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

You make....<snip>

More pointless Ad Hominem from the peanut gallery. I quite easily addressed and refuted you last post. Instead of addressing the quite cogent argument presented, you have chosen to address me instead of my arguments.

No one is fooled by your transparent inability to address posts that refute you premise.

Your first post had potential even though the premise was flawed. I addressed the flaw while approving of the dictum as it is right in line with biblical teaching.

There was nothing objectionable in my first post whatsoever. My next post was addressed to someone else, but you chose to reply by accusing me of sowing discord. As it turns out the very person I was addressing, liked my post, and saw fit to let everyone know that fact which you can verify for yourself, if you cared to know the truth.

I'll admit you came fairly close to a reasonable reply with your last post to me, but the fact is that I refuted it. If you think this isn't the case, you could address it, but you've chosen to continue with your policy of Ad Hominem, as well as whatever other fallacies you feel like posting. This is quickly getting boring. Your dull, and irrelevant replies are too tiresome to waste any more time with.

My first post was #14, which was followed by 17,18,and 19. The only thing I addressed in any of these posts was the argument and points presented in the OP. No Ad Hominem, no trolling, and nothing that sowed discord. I addressed, and refuted the points presented. I also asked for clarification on a few points which were ALL ignored. This simply spotlights that some people actually want to be ignored, and it comes as no surprise that the reason is because they have no defense for their position. They simply refuse to address their own topic other than to repeat it as if people don't understand it in the first place. This is blatantly false as the questions I pose show I understand the OP perfectly.

 

[shnarkle]

Leans more towards sophistry in my opinion

Ya think? It's the worse kind of bloviating gas bag sophomoric sophistry imaginable. It's a crude caricature of sophistry; something you'd see on Saturday Night Live.

It reminds me of something someone else pointed out recently with regards to people who join this group pretending to be Christians only to post asinine topics to make Christians look silly. This guy looks like someone who is trying to make agnostics look goofy.

 

[shnarkle]

Greek: ἀγνοέω
Transliteration: agnoeō
Pronunciation: ag-no-eh'-o
Definition: From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication to ignore (through disinclination): - (be) ignorant (-ly) not know not understand unknown.
KJV Usage: be ignorant (7x), ignorant (4x), know not (4x), understand not (3x), ignorantly (2x), unknown (2x).
Occurs: 25
In verses: 21
Why do you people like to call yourselves ignorant?

They don't just enjoy referring to themselves as ignorant, they genuinely enjoy ignoring anything that comes close to an honest straightforward discussion or debate. It's ridiculous.

 

[Waiting on him]

Okay, smart ass; I am being serious here, while you joke about and thereby demonstrate you are merely a flippant joker and, not a serious student of Jehovah/Christ's questionable authenticity. Okay, later,silly alligator....goodbye flippy clown boy...
Duane

The problem we have Duane is not the authenticity of Christ or His deity, the problem lies in Duane’s inability to be governed. You don’t like the woop down from authority because you believe your above it “to intelligent” better than others because you have nothing better to do with your life than read your dictionary.
You can only mistreat people for so long before they bring in the authorities, and when you stand before the judge then that slick tongue of yours is worthless, even if there’s enough tongue in there for ten rows of teeth.