God. Materialism. Idealism. And the NDNID!

God. Materialism. Idealism.

This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea 2005 - 2011. Make no mistake about it!

The question of whether the representation is actual or not and if it is of one entity or many.

If God lies dormant or exists conscious. Theory of pantheistic/panendeistic God can look like fabric is God

Matter-monads is the body of God. Life-monads is the mind of God. So in the sense of the omnipresent God, it has now been defined.

To the origin of life: There is still the classical question: What is first? In this understanding of it, there is nothing but God.

Body is in this the factual matter.

Mind is in this the life and gravitational-'matter'.

I considered this first in two ways, in the question of body.

1. Universe and the matter in it.

2. Space, wherever space is and the matter in it.

But I changed as you can see from above the 2 firstly considerations. Matter is only body and everything else is mind. In the respects of science, it can be seen as easier to move from the sphere of mind into the body as it becomes more tangible.

By Terje Lea, 02.10.2005.

Metaphysics, The Establishment of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID)

This is the beginning of the best alternative to the stupid notion of Intelligent Design which is promoted only for deception and dogmatism, it seems. My version will have the aim of establishing the most reasonable, intelligent, plausible, working Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design it's possible to achieve. It's premise will first and foremost be the best possible belief in God and infinity insofar as it can represent Truth. It's implied that Truth trumps God in case God proves to be a non-viable option or concept in light of advances somewhere in the future. NDNID is, of course, completely open to criticism and only reason is the judge.

There's a perfect being, (the natural) God, that's the creator and intelligent designer of every possible universe and all in everyone of those hence NDNID.

Thus, the logic of NDNID
1.-15. Assumptions, incl. the next two.
14. There is a possibility that Ethics affirms God. (Ethics may/is likely to be biconditional to God and thus this appears different.) Ass.
15. There is a possibility that Meaning affirms God. (Meaning may/is likely to be biconditional to God and thus this appears different.) Ass.
16. It's important to believe in truth/knowledge.
17. Anything that contradicts knowledge doesn't exist.
18. Our knowledge isn't complete, therefore there is a possibility of God.
19. The definition of God doesn't contradict our knowledge, therefore there is a possibility of God.
C1. There is a possibility that God exists.
C2. It's important to believe in God as a possibility.
C3. It's important to believe in Ethics and Meaning as there's a possibility that Ethics and Meaning affirm God if God exists.

The typical sentence of a believer is consequently: I believe in God because there's a possibility for believing in God (for real).

(I have limited knowledge of modal logic. I can therefore not guarantee this logical argument's validity. Intuitively, however, it looks very good. Actually, better than most!)

I like to emphasise is that this is rather the promotion of a more open view of intelligent design in being NDNID. It is indeed supposed to be open for scrutiny to everyone who honestly believe in a God of truth, an existing God of reality and less of transcendence.

ID as contrasted with NDNID. From Wikip.:
ID: "The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science."
Which is blatantly against NDNID as NDNID is "...certainly coherent with all of science including scientific consensus of theories...". Also, I have no intention of trying to pry in NDNID being taught as science in schools. It's only supposed to be more coherent as a view of God in God-believers.

ID: "...and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations..."
In NDNID it's the other way around, the idea of God complies with our science as a whole and has no objections to it.

I'm not sure if I need to go on. You can read about the (moronic idea of) ID here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design.

It seems to me that ID is counterproductive in the sense of being so strange and dogmatic that potential God-believers are thrown off by it. Therefore, it probably works against any religion of God and at the same time entrenching the conservative Christians. This is sad! Not only are kids in conservative circles brought in almost abject way to the rest of people, but people are also rejected to take part by it's unreasonable approach and closed nature. I hope ID dies and the crazy people with it.

Note1: Not to exclude anyone, but I do hope for the input of serious God-believers and their justification/foundation for making the whole thing coming together and to see if we can agree to some extent, ultimately doing something better than "classical" ID, namely NDNID. It's also implied that NDNID is intended for religious teaching and certainly not the science curriculum. This point separates clearly NDNID from ID.

Note2: This is a small personal note of mine. I suggest that Scientology is compatible with NDNID, but this is not any suggestion to people to get involved with this religion. It's merely mentioned as being a good, organised offer. You are welcome to add others.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
UD (universe of discourse): Everything
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions

1. (∃x)(D) A (A is Assumption :))
2. (∃x)(Mx) A
3. (∃x)(Ex) A
4. (∃x)(Px) A
5. (∃x)(Kx) A
6. (∃x)(Bx) A
7. (∃x)(Ix) A
8. (∀x)(Px) A
9. (∀x)(Cx) ≡ (∀x)◊(Kx) A
10. (∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃x)(Gx) A
11. ◊(∃x)(Gx) ∨ ~◊(∃x)(Gx) A
12. ◊[(∃x)(Kx) ⊃ (∃x)(Gx)] A
13. (∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(Gx) A
14. ◊((∃x)(Ex) ⊃ (∃x)(Gx))
15. ◊((∃x)(Mx) ⊃ (∃x)(Gx))
------------------------------
16. (∃x)(Bx) ⊃ (∃x)(Ix) 6, 7 ⊃I (Conditional Introduction)
17. (∃x)(Kx) ⊃ [(∃x)(Bx) ⊃ (∃x)(Ix)] 5, 8 ⊃I
18. (∃x)(Kx) ⊃ (∃x)(Dx) 5, 1 ⊃I 19. (∃x)(Px) ⊃ [(∃x)(Kx) ⊃ (∃x)(Dx)] 4, 10 ⊃I 20. (∃x)(Kx) ≡ ~(∀x)(Px)
21. [(∃x)(Kx) ⊃ ~(∃x)(Cx)] ⊃ ◊(∃x)(Gx)
22. [(∃x)(Kx) ≡ (∃x)(Dx)] ⊃ ◊(∃x)(Gx)
C1. ◊(∃x)(Gx)
C2. (◊(∃x)(Gx) ⊃ (∃x)(Bx)) ⊃ (∃x)(Ix)
C3. [((∃x)(Ex) ∧ (∃x)(Mx)) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(Gx)] ⊃ [(∃x)(Bx) ⊃ (∃x)(Ix)]

Note3: Ethics may/is likely to be biconditional to God and thus this (21) appears different.
Note4: Meaning may/is likely to be biconditional to God and thus this (22) appears different.

There are good possibilities for removing (∀x)(Cx), so this may happen in the future.
In Scientology sense: either say ◊(∃x)(Fx) (F is Infinity) or that ◊[(∃x)(Fx) ≡ (∃x)(Gx)]
(∃x)(Kx) ⊃ ~(∀x)(Px)
[(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ (∃x)(Kx)] ⊃ ~(∃x)(Px)

The symbolisation of this, finally, whether you like it or not:
(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
C./4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination) This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)
[13./1] □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
[2] □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
[3] □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
[C1./4] ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3 This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
[1.] □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
[2.] □(∃x)(Dx) A
[3.] □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
C./7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination) This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.
[Edit, unsp.:] Square brackets put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. [End]

(3)
[15./1] □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
[xx./2] □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
[xx./3] □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
[C1./4] ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3) This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)
[15./1] □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
[xx./2] □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
[xx./3] □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
[C1./4] ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3) This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.
This should be in line with Kripke-modality as it's explained in his Naming and Necessity.
But the best one can do, IMO, is ◊(∃x)(G), possibly there's an existing God! I guess, all we believers are waiting for "Heaven".

Note: I've imported an addition from the Philosophy Now forum that has been written there 15. Jan. 2011.

By Terje Lea, 29.01.2010, 30.01.2010, 01.02.2010, 03.02.2010, 22.04.2010, 17.08.2010, 01.01.2011, 16.01.2011 and 20.01.2011. Added "propositions" to the formalisation of NDNID at some point between 2. Feb 2010 and today, 24. Mar. 2010.
These are various rants and ravings of religious nature, especially in the sense of Deism in support of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID).
Updated: 03.06.2010.
Posted 01/05/10 - 05:50 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

I deeply agree with Deism! It's just the best and it cuts all the crap. I see only the best philosophical reflections in it and there's no problem of granting all good people access to Heaven in that particular system, again drawing on the absolutely fine philosophical considerations.
Posted 01/06/10 - 10:35 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

180Proof (on PF) has mentioned something about a "working hypothesis"
and perhaps the entities of science are a working hypothesis as much as
the entities of non-science are a working hypothesis (we need to deduct Calory and Phlogiston and all those that are ruled out!).

Also, a child can't be said to be either an Atheist or a True Believer, I think, as the child has yet to reach a consciousness of Religion or its opposite!
Posted 01/14/10 - 11:15 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

I can't see the reality of all supposed Gods, but being facets of one common, logical explanation that will last for as long as necessary. I believe, insofar religious people believe in a kind of God, then necessarily, if one is to take their conviction for real, is the belief in this one God, the natural God. Just see it as hypotheses of thinking/intuition/deduction/inference/induction it's hard to get answers on!
Posted 01/16/10 - 08:54 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

It's strange to notice that people are so hooked up on having a single time-reference. If there are several universes, each of these must have its own time-reference. This should be quite clear. Now, if there's this entity popping out universes and has a consistent eternal nature, why can't it be timeless/infinite? We have only our own lives to refer to in relation to time so "timeless" is obviously speculative, but a logical necessity of NDNID.
Posted 01/17/10 - 11:35 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

The honour and God is always consistent in my view! If it's not honourable, it excludes God. They are not opposites.
God is supposed to be perfect and therefore his way is always perfection. Honour has to be honour (and cognitive), always, if one is to rise to the qualification given by (the perfect) God.
The questions of Honour and God are complex, but I'd say they always go together!

Honour ≡ God
Posted 01/23/10 - 07:49 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

I'm relatively satisfied with combining Plotinus and Thomas Aquinas in a modified version. Look below for the "Foundation for NDNID".
Posted 01/23/10 - 12:47 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

The relation between (the natural, deistic) God and Honour is biconditional. If it's honourable then it's from God and if it's from God then it's honourable!
I don't want to take part in the lousily documented Biblical stuff, man, Moses may have had a schizophrenic moment for all I know!
Posted 01/25/10 - 01:29 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

The most basic foundation in supporting a God-belief consists these factors:
(1) The fact that there are [(most certainly/probably)] truths outside of our current sphere of knowledge is one rational reason to believe in God.
(2) The anomalies of science suggest a fantastic explanation to all of these.
(3) A serious ontological consideration of meaning.
(4) A serious consideration of ontological morals of Good and Evil.
Posted 01/25/10 - 09:46 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

The usual anomalies: existence, emergence of life and consciousness, the true nature of all things, the rather strange nature of Pre-Big-Bang and it's reason for being just like that, the infinite expansion of universe.
Posted 01/25/10 - 04:52 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

I don't need to describe what God is, but there are good logical grounds for assuming a God entity of perfection. The foundation for making this entity rise from this void has been mentioned. By this "answer/leap of faith" I sense a stronger grounding than having the prospect of reclining my "soul" and corpse with the soil. F.x. I'd say meaninglessness is "hell" or very undesired. I share the view of facts (and probably the whole scientific picture) according to the best of science, but not Atheism's shortcomings in religious matters. The foundation I've given drives me to this "obscure"/"vague"/"mystical"/"fantastic" concept of God. I believe this is like predicting that particle (can't remember the name) in physics. There should be something there, I just can't say or describe exactly what it is. I don't subscribe to Creationism in the way it has been defined which is just bullocks, but I'm open for a different kind of "Creationism" being NDNID behind this Big-Bang. Also, it's pretty clear that there are quite many anomalies in science today despite science being "progressive" or whatever.
Posted 01/26/10 - 02:08 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

It strikes me as possible to argue that if all is to be good we would already be united with God in "Heaven", but life as it is, is to be in the fray, experience and be victorious (by God's miracle) or lose (fail to take part in God's perfection) to "evil". So, "evil" is more the necessary test of time in the tension of God and "the outside". Therefore, to be with God or make such an aim is to be guaranteed the absence of "evil" after death.
Posted 01/26/10 - 02:29 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

Given certain premises of the logical statement, I say this God-belief, NDNID, is both valid and sound.

To suggest that NDNID supports "demonisation" is contrary to the belief of regarding the entire human kind as subjects for "Heaven" and it manifests the actual failure to spread the message of God's miracle. There's no foundation for such a claim in NDNID, inherently.

I suggest God is outside every causality argument that goes on inside this Universe, not being subject to that notion just like the notion of time. That is, God can create and is part of the causality of universe or universes, but the being of God itself is outside of it.

The classic Atheist trap of meaninglessness. Meaning is an illusion, according to the Atheists! This is absurd! What choice, really, does one have, but to choose the meaningful? Absurdity or possible illusion, tough choice, eh.. not!

I only need to point to the possibility of God and the definition of NDNID has to be compatible to such a requirement. There's certainly no absolute truth being argued here for the existence of God. I have indeed mentioned "leap of faith", yes? This possibility of God arises from (partly?) this "foundation" of premises/"questions" that beg for the appropriate prediction (of God, or in your case(s) the absence or falsity of such). Still, we're forced to be staring into the mysteries and make those unfounded beliefs, not knowing what's on the other side, what tomorrow will bring, in principle. We're subject to leaps of faith, the lot of us!
Posted 01/26/10 - 03:12 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

NDNID isn't about arguing in the sense of Argument From Ignorance because NDNID doesn't claim any proof of God. NDNID's claim of God is contentious, not certain. To demand definite belief as in dogmatic belief in the religious sense considering that the eventual destiny is certainly one of prediction, is beyond any reasonable demand, I think. In fact, the entire religious and non-religious enterprises are ones of an assumed, predicted, unknown ideal.
Posted 01/26/10 - 07:37 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

I think the entity of God supports meaning much better than Atheism, usually taking the view that Human Kind is doomed and has a limited time span. God gives meaning because God provides infinity to the world of Human Kind, speculatively. There may be a chance, with God, for rebirth in new universes or on other planets or on earth again on some other occasion or just reclining in God in some meaningful way. I don't know, but there is more strength with God in this sense than without. It's still speculation, though, I don't hide this fact.

Please, look at it this way: you can believe in Atheism and risk accepting a death by illusion or you can, with God, try to perceive an after-life that may present a Pandora box to you. In a sense, by Atheism, you accept a kind of "Pessimism" that hasn't been proven yet. This may have consequences in your life when you make certain choices. The whole existence may be very nice with God, yet one often denies such because of "abstract nature". I just find Atheism very "pessimistic".

I find nothing that definitely refutes that a grand idea of infinite God should be unable to create Universe(s). Why should this be impossible? I mean, an aspect of Cosmology suggests that our universe is just one dimension from other universes. Why can't God have a similar nature? Why should it be that this entity can't have a mechanism that effectuates Universe(s)? The incoherency of this denial is on the side of the Atheist.
Posted 01/26/10 - 06:30 PM: forums.philosophyforums.com

To make the claim of "fantasies"/"faerie stories"/other fictional content has equivalence to this, NDNID, is to be ignorant, at best, to the fact that fantasies are nonetheless only fantasies because the way they are defined that definitely put them outside our reality. This is not the case with the (possibly modified) concept of God, which I happen to think, seriously speaking, is mostly coherent in God-believers, one evasive way or another until then.

The Kalam argument/Cosmological argument isn't relevant either as its case fails. One can speak, though, being a perhaps better technical wording of a writing of mine that there may be a story of multiple temporal dimensions, something I phrase as one God-entity/entities of (temporal) infinite, dimension [universe of only God] outside our own or a part of bigger multiverse. This God-dimension, universe may then have this interdimensional, causal structure, necessarily if NDNID is to be true.

Perhaps, we as humanity have all these possibilities because the Universe is "built" in this special way. In carrying out our special nature of intelligence, our status gives us the notion that each of us means something special in a moral view especially the evil way if we are unjustly destroyed/killed. The qualification of getting infinitely rewarded when doing the right moral acts reinforces this sense of Morality/Ethics in the Religious sense.

One should take note of the casual claim of Atheism that Religious views are wholly psychological and that Atheism commits a logical fallacy for doing so.

Can Atheism explain: how is it incoherent to suggest that God is the cause of our Universe? I think Atheism puts a number of assumptions behind this incoherency claim that I don't support. F.x. if God is immaterial then God can't create an actual Universe of matter and energy. This is good, but I'd claim that God's being is real/consists of a kind of matter/energy, but being outside of our universe or being attached to it in a special way.

One should take note of the fact that the concept of God plays a very different role, ontologically, than all or most of the faerie stories, of Santa Claus, of the usual idle speculation and one's fantasies by the role God plays in being an extraordinary cause of the whole of existence, particularly intelligence. The particular role is easily defeated in other speculations/fantasies/Santa Claus and what have you. This should be good!

Is religious belief practical or personally necessary? Neither, I find it possible (in the face of the absurd)! One should note that if in fact God exists, then God becomes a necessary factor in every reality, but as of now God remains the best, presumably, belief of a possibility. This may appear strange in the sense of Modal Logic.
Posted 01/27/10 - 11:31 AM: forums.philosophyforums.com

Religious conviction is not necessarily comfort, my moral mistakes have a deeper impact, just like moral virtues have the possibility of bliss to the same impact, one going down, the other going up.

Why can't time and God arise at the same time? Perhaps God is "God and time and space and causality and the universes including God's own, of course". I'm not sure how to definitely describe God, but it's certainly coherent with all of science including scientific consensus of theories by NDNID.
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 2:25 am UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Just a remark on (the ontology) of Ethics in this:
If ◊[(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ (∃x)(Gx)] and you don't accept God, but you acknowledge that Ethics, if anything, can lead us to God then Ethics should be incredibly important in every case!
As it says in the above, this is important, I think!
Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:04 pm UTC; forum.philosophynow.org

I can't see how the atheist is more rational than the deist/theist.
Why should the bare view of today's science say anything about the complete human experience, from God possibly to earth and back to God again, that is including afterlife? I admit we don't have evidence of after-life or more than just the (mortal) birth, life and (mortal) death of a human, but still this is short of many other perspectives.
So while the atheist puts one's sensitivities on science and what can "be put under the microscope", the deist/theist has one's sensitivities on meaning, ethics, infinity and the ontology of intelligence, that all in all is far more rational than what any atheist can muster!
Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:21 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

The objection to the rant and crusade from the atheists is that they are blind to the fine sensitivities religious people have toward ethics as the way to God (that also is a foundation for meaning)! Thus, atheists and atheism may tear down very important institutions and intuitions in society that work cohesively and incredibly constructive humans to humans, in interpersonal relationships! The society may come down if one forces through this headless (to some extent) movement (by these atheists and atheism)! This is the very concern! Just because you, the atheist, need it "under your microscope" doesn't make the crusade against religions right!
Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:21 am UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Now if you can't see that all these 4 arguments support the belief in (a possible) God, I really, really can't help you (out of your stupidity)!

Obviously, the modality of possibility of God describes the preparedness to accept whatever truth there is in the "final" explanation of reality, usually, by many, one that you obtain when you're dead, thus the ND (of NDNID), non-dogmatic! The ID describes simply the belief in God, the Intelligent Designer.
Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:58 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID) by the Philosophy Now forum.

This is the last writing on trying to educate people on NDNID: all religious faith requires the leap of faith, you can't simply sit around and wait for it. 2nd: possibility is all that is asked for in this respect although it (heh-heh-heh) is most likely true that believers go all the way without asserting any particular truth to it other than exactly this leap of faith which may to some imply truth, unfoundedly/unjustifyingly!
Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:50 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID) by the Philosophy Now forum.

The symbolisation of this,
(1)
1. (∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. (∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. (∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
C./4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination) This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)
[13./1] (∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
[2] (∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
[3] (∀x)(Cx) R 2
[C1./4] ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3 This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

[Edit, 15.01.2011:]
(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
[1.] (∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
[2.] (∃x)(Dx) A
[3.] (∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. (∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. (∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. (∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
C./7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination) This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.
[End of edit.]
[Edit, unsp.:] Square brackets put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. [End]

(3)
[15./1] (∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
[xx./2] (∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
[xx./3] (∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
[C1./4] ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3) This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)
[15./1] (∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
[xx./2] (∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
[xx./3] (∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
[C1./4] ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3) This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, all the 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

[Edit, 19.01.2011:] It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind. [End of edit.]

(For some f*cked reason, my Internet Explorer fails to display certain logical symbols!!! Funny, if not deficient, what??!!!)
Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

1. My use of the logical symbols is one of convention.

2. The reiteration, R, is one of convention also, I think. Fitch System?

3. I could have used Propositional Logic, but the Modality point would have become less obvious. I also intend this to stand against or in comparison with the arguments of necessary notions of Anselm of Canterbury/Alvin Carl Plantinga/Kurt Gödel.
The Ontological Argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument.

4. God is not some senseless entity. God does fulfill a possible description that we can/have cognition of. Thus the definition. It's also important to counter the notions of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, i.e., the unserious counter arguments.

5. I'm not a Cartesian on this point. Rather I'm a Scientific Deist or God Realist. That is, God must have a kind of reality and must fit a certain description. Thus "God possibly exists", standing by itself, is a base assertion, one that can never win hearts and minds. Also, now the God of Modality/Possibility is a logical notion. One step up from earlier...

6. If you drop the definition or the possible knowledge entailment, then you also drop the cognition of God. You are then forced to believe in a God blindly and this is simply not my God. Also, the FSM appears again. Besides, I think most believers have an idea of what objectives their God of belief are supposed to fulfill and you, the Atheist, don't care about it, obviously. Thus, I admit no such thing as believing in a God blindly! Final!!
Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:42 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

So, for the DEFINITION for a (natural/deistic) God:
The definition of God is such that God makes eternity happen, regardless of the destiny of this or any other universe, apart from "God's own universe"! Further, God is such that reincarnation is possible, either in relative proximity to the former life or not. God is such also that the reality of souls obtain, that is, the souls can return to its creator if they are found worthy after the purgatory! God is also such that souls have various rules they follow, laws if you like, and that these laws, as much as laws of nature, are absolute!
God is also such that this Universe and any other universe can be created/come into existence.
The rest of reality is, by God, as you see it in nature and have it from the (natural) sciences! That is, God operates through the laws of nature. There is NO miracle or intervention from God as such into this or any other world!!!

Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 8/26/2011 06:01:00 PM

29 comments:

Some of the necessity marks (□) are also in place as difference from the original document, but this is uncontroversial and has been in place before I deleted this writing on Blogspot!
4 October 2011 07:58

I've been depressed and erratic and I've "felt a request to delete some of the text" rather dishonestly. This is now to be corrected shortly. I beg your pardon! Sorry!
4 October 2011 07:59

monades (inc.) -> monads (cor.)
5 October 2011 03:09

Further on NDNID:
On formalising a better and more _whole_ line of the NDNID, I provide this:
1. All 4 parts are necessary to have the strongest argument for a possible God. Assump.
2. All 4 parts are in place. Assump.
(3. Some Reiteration of 2.)
4. We have the strongest argument for a possible God! Conclusion and ->E (Conditional Elimination)
The Universe of Discourse will look different, though and you will have to amend this. Symbolically, this has not crossed the finishing line!
8 October 2011 02:56

The victory by this, NDNID, is of course, that NOW the position of the Religious people, _necessarily_, needs to be admitted as serious _by the Atheists_! (And there is NO way for them to escape this, in order to stay in the game of academic discussion, if they are to be considered.)
8 October 2011 03:07

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
UD (universe of discourse): Everything
(so from above)
A: Arguments as propositions
R: Parts of Arguments as propositions
G: God proposition (as before)
O: Strongest Arguments as propositions

(Alright, UD is _still_ Everything which is common in Logics.)
8 October 2011 03:10

[1.] □(∃x)(R) ⊃ [□(∃z)(O) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A
[2.] □(∃x)(R) A
[3.] □(∃z)(O) A
------------------------------
4. □(∃x)(R) 3 R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃z)(O) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) 1,4 ⊃E
6. □(∃z)(O) 2 R
------------------------------
C./7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Will this suffice your requirement for a complete line of argument? I hope so. Cheers!
8 October 2011 03:28

Just in case you haven't made one yourself. :-)
8 October 2011 03:28

Numbers (in this case 4) are not included in logics (except, possibly, in a special way). Thus, by my quantification (quant - part, all or some) this is not relevant. This is a formal notice.
8 October 2011 03:56
L.F.O.-L. said...

"6. If you drop the definition or the possible knowledge entailment, then you also drop the cognition of God. You are then forced to believe in a God blindly and this is simply not my God. Also, the FSM appears again."
FSM stands for Flying Spaghetti Monster. This has been the Atheist's attack against the most absurd notions of religion because they claim that God can't be separated from FSM in any particular way! However, they forget the virtuous ways God is supposed to obtain as God, even by description and when there is no plausible need for neither of the three concepts, flying, spaghetti and monster, in God, *then* you know that the Atheists have _failed_ and that the force of FSM today is _nothing_! This is the trick of Description as one of the 4 components of NDNID in that it confines believers and critics alike into _seriousness_! Good?
21 November 2011 05:21

You may get strung up in my x-s and y-s, but these are not important as there are no entities defined yet to fill these "roles" on our Cast-list, the UoD. So this is purely principally depicted! Therefore, the x-s and y-s don't matter so much! Cheers!
19 December 2011 13:28

First of all, to speak of a hard statement like □(∃y)(Gy), necessary God, in logics, is a way off. Formerly, I think it's conceivable that even Kripke and many other Logicians of Modal Logics would bother to speak about, □Fx, necessary future events, holding off indirect truths by the combined laws of nature, such iff. no nuclear holocaust and iff. the Sun doesn't blow up soon. This has used to be the difficulty for asserting □(∃y)(Gy) with any force at all... But it has been shown now of course that Possible God is enough for the debate to elegantly vapourise! Cheers!
25 December 2011 10:23

Just a pre-emptive strike today: let's say that the Atheists (or anyone else) has an objection to one of the 4-fold arguments by the 1st premise. We take fx. Nec. Ethics -> Poss. God. Now how can they object? First, I've chosen the far less pretentious modality of possible God. This may be the first nut for these Atheists. Then I make the logical implication as is normal for people who believe in God, namely that Ethics makes you able/accepted to be with God after death! Now, I think the Atheists _only_ attack lies in empirical findings and possibly description... Pushing for more and more description. But what we do? Yes, "this is all I can say! Perhaps it will be the "ghost nature" of the Holy Ghost that takes us there!" There is not much more that we need to do. We cite God's given principles on Universe and all in it and if we comply with these set of rules, following the best of advise and our best thinking, we GET TO BE WITH GOD. This is simply how it is with us, the religious people! How do they do it now? There is nowhere for them to GO!!! They have lost! Not only that, but this argument comes in 3 more of these, even taking away their "famous" Flying Spaghetti Monster!
25 December 2011 10:28

I've corrected the future modality notion above: One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, necessary knowledge contains a possible existing God, then a possible existing God becomes necessarily an existing God.
25 December 2011 11:34

I've had examples in the past that Blogspot has not been entirely honest in the approach to my writings and I just object right now to how these have appeared before I've now corrected them!
25 December 2011 11:35

Well, well, I'll admit to a double-screw myself afterall. Because by this [(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G), it appears I've left out the "jewels" and perhaps, by contempt to some people, say no nationality and people of a certain kind, that the first screw lies in the un-convention of only naming the □ and the second is of course that I from my writings asserted the possible God only, ◊. So, I think the real reason is the contempt "of some people" and you can start with the Police authorities of Norway!!!

Then again, I've not received the slightest little objection from "these other protesters"!!! As I've now made this appear more conventional, even only a formal notice at that, this matter can now blow over!
25 December 2011 12:13

I guess this boils down to dying in the belief in a possible God and then to find one has achieved a place in Heaven/with God! Nec. Knowledge -> Poss. God -> Nec. God (not entirely right, though)!
25 December 2011 12:15

([□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(K)) ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
...is a better expression of belief in God then knowledge of Heaven and then knowledge of God.
25 December 2011 13:18

If the special route to possible God by reality of soul and this notion of deeper meaning and ontological truth of ethics hold, then why not necessary God?

I know it doesn't hold formally and I know it's fragile, but still this is a tempting thought, one that lies just a little off! Or what? Good?

Just posted to Facebook moments ago.
25 December 2011 14:08

...then why not necessary God, □(∃x)(G)?
25 December 2011 14:09

You should also add telepathy to the above... the soul and so and so...

But we who about stuff too... "magic with people" and all the that other stuff of "vodoo-kind"... you get the gist... It's inevitable... "Hell is coming down on Earth to a cinema near you!" Cheers!

Moments ago to Facebook!
25 December 2011 16:35
L.F.O.-L. said...

I've also found a possible reason, not that I want it repeated, by the fact that both of the two first notion, unnotated notions, /can/ go by ◊, possibility, but the first one /can/ flicker or be chosen to be either of the 2 notions of modality, ◊/□ and this may be seen as cool. That is 1st is ◊/□, second is ◊, and 3rd is notated by □. Thus: [(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G). Ending up with instead, LIKE IT? [The first left to flicker as catching attention instead of the far more nice consideration of having ◊(∃x)(G) right there in front of one's eyes!]
26 December 2011 09:27

I have a compilation to add. I'm also going to review it and possibly repost it! Alright?
31 December 2011 16:55

You may get strung up in my x-s and y-s, but these are not important as there are no entities defined yet to fill these "roles" on our Cast-list, the UoD. So this is purely principally depicted! Therefore, the x-s and y-s don't matter so much!
One thing more over this "evolution theory" (as if it could be crucial whatsoever): There is NO religious _duty_ to stay WITH the description of fx. the Bible (by Noah's Ark and the 6000 year old planet) as such. The core of Religious belief is ethics, meaning, true description and a possibleknowledge entailment of its claims of Heaven or some stage toward reincarnation! Thus, every Religious person can _accept science w/o qualms and PLACE Religion on TOP of this, w/o any (formal) problem whatsoever!
Just a pre-emptive strike today: let's say that the Atheists (or anyone else) has an objection to one of the 4-fold arguments by the 1st premise. We take fx. Nec. Ethics -> Poss. God. Now how can they object? First, I've chosen the far less pretentious modality of possible God. This may be the first nut for these Atheists. Then I make the logical implication as is normal for people who believe in God, namely that Ethics makes you able/accepted to be with God after death! Now, I think the Atheists _only_ attack lies in empirical findings and possibly description... Pushing for more and more description. But what we do? Yes, "this is all I can say! Perhaps it will be the "ghost nature" of the Holy Ghost that takes us there!" There is not much more that we need to do. We cite God's given principles on Universe and all in it and if we comply with these set of rules, following the best of advise and our best thinking, we GET TO BE WITH GOD. This is simply how it is with us, the religious people! How do they do it now? There is nowhere for them to GO!!! They have lost! Not only that, but this argument comes in 3 more of these, even taking away their "famous" Flying Spaghetti Monster! But the Atheists were small to begin with... Forever small?
The fact that we can't explain where we come from IS a valid RELIGIOUS consideration! Who can demand that people stop considering these very important EXISTENTIAL questions and where to put them than under the label of RELIGION? And if you are so hooked on it, why don't you make that (nonsense) Scientific Theory over it, that probably supplies NO meaning to the question either way! The EXISTENTIAL questions ARE important, defacto, and one is always justified for making them...
I've also found a possible reason, not that I want it repeated, by the fact that both of the two first notion, unnotated notions, /can/ go by ◊, possibility, but the first one /can/ flicker or be chosen to be either of the 2 notions of modality, ◊/□ and this may be seen as cool. That is 1st is ◊/□, second is ◊, and 3rd is notated by □. Thus: [(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G). Ending up with instead, LIKE IT?
You may claim that the knowledge entailment lies _inside scientific_ claims, but this is far fetched as one can't follow the souls (if they exist) to Heaven in any version of it. This knowledge entailment is therefore meant as personal knowledge, first and foremost. It's therefore also thoroughly _outside_ science since this addresses the Biblical claim "of getting to Heaven", logically. The knowledge entailment of the religious people is therefore not a scientific claim, but is ...
...meant to take care of some of the Biblical logics that is integral to the various religions, most, I think if they bother to adjust the argument to their particular religion. This is also mostly the "knowledge entailment of "Heaven"", perhaps as reincarnation of Buddhism or so... Likewise, Allah and Yahweh for God, or inifinity, more informally for that matter. Welcome to the Religions! :-) [One of several to enter.]
31 December 2011 16:59

You should understand by now that Religion lies _outside_ Science and that this is mostly a matter of metaphysics and logics under the discussion of God. Truth can be equally held by all sides here, there is no problem with this...

Religious does in fact _entail_ as category all of the followers of religions even though I don't bother with the smallest and absurd, like those cults... I need a citing for why Muslims can't believe in evolution. The Quran is indeed the word of Allah as the Bible is the word of God if not only the 10 Commandments "from a burning bush on a mountain"! There is great reformed Islam in Turkey. Perhaps you can check with them... You shouldn't forget about the"moderate Muslims" either.
You need to remember that when the Bible was written some 1500 years ago they were... forgive me, simpletons...! They probably sat there and babbled over numbers and said "give me a big number!" and the answer from the buddy was "6000?". Alright, that's a big number, my good man, it is now written! This is the way the Bible came into being. They had no clue over 900 000 things and so on... And they certainly didn't have the Carbon-14 (C-14) dating method in place either! Thus, I think one can expect most or all "reasonable religious people to reject or do away with the old notions of "religious truths" and that it's not serious to bother to hold these old views AGAINST religious people _unless_ they promote these stupid ideas of "these ancestors of ours, these simpletons!" Alright? Put the idiocy to the anachronistic religious people...! But then again, some of you... :-D
[One of several to enter.]
31 December 2011 17:01 [A word addded: dating, to the C-14 method!]

Some concepts are more delicate than others. Ethics for one. On the other side, it's far more easy and simple to understand a "club in hand with an original man", that is, the mere metaphor of an idiot who presents danger to people in public... :-) But there is another perspective too, there is an ongoing challenge to science to TRY to remove all religious aspects... I think religious people are open to this so just go ahead... :-D
Considering the Alvin Plantinga article by NYT, I must say that Science and Religion are compatible because religion defines its assertions, possibly, in a domain where the science ends. No religious person is forced to be dogmatic if they bother to afford some more thought to their beliefs, all sensitivities intact!
You get the small meal of science and leave the bigger meal of science and religion to the religious people. Cheers! Well, well, I'll let them ramble on... the information has been spread sufficiently I think and the conclusion must be clear. Today, the World is different with the respects of Atheism vs. Religion...

God is _now_, undeniably, logical (out of possibility) ... and the fact that Religious (God) belief is now undeniably _serious_ and also (possibly) _non_dogmatic, depending on how the Religious people define their partic. religious belief, by the same Modal God argument, that their Religious views (on a minimal basis, at least) has to be accepted. This posting is thus for the flow of information and I look forward to seeing how the World develops!

On Value of Human Beings by Ethics (by Wendy Wright):
I think a Nazi slogan has been "strongest right to live" vs. weaker people. It may also be that Darwinism leads to an opinion that makes people think that they are alive due to a package of qualities when in fact people have suffered all sorrts of fates based on so random circumstances that NO human HAS this "superiority". But still, these deluded people say: Die to some and live for others. Thus they wage a kind of Darwinism that takes away your argument!

Religious people on the other hand usually have a code with them that compels them to see human beings as God's miracle and not only that, they need to actually fulfill their Religions set of ethics to get to "Heaven" or whatever! This is a far _harder_ requirement in terms of Ethics than any Humanist/Atheist can ever come up with, because life to them may be mere chance and ethics mere education! Cheers!
Religious people on the other hand usually have a code with them that compels them to see human beings as God's miracle and not only that, they need to actually fulfill their Religions set of ethics to get to "Heaven" or whatever! This is a far _harder_ requirement in terms of Ethics than any Humanist/Atheist can ever come up with, because life to them may be mere chance and ethics mere education! Cheers!
Further: I agree with some of what what people write about religion, BUT you forget that a largely religious world has established the UN, has made the Human Rights Declaration and met across religious and legal borders! That religiousness you speak of is simply not the dominant! Besides, Atheists have LOST one of their most forceful assertion in that religion has been regarded as NOT logical! Religions can NOW CLAIM that they are possibly TRUE! And THIS MATTERS, as much as philosophy EXISTS!
31 December 2011 17:04

To say that "Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?" As a religious person, I've made an objective ethics named "Ethical Objectivity - Objection to Arguments of Companions in Guilt" based on Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health and to check with various lie detectors (4 different possibly in a Police scenario)! In addition a few things have been entered to a largely Kantian Ethics system! Please, remember that Kant's Ethics are not religious in principle!
The hard nut lies really with the level of devotion the Atheist has vs. the Religious, and we religious people think this lies more safely within religious contexts, most religions considered, down to Scientology as the smallest!
Just the notice on Integrity: I use it in a particular (philosophical) sense and this has to do with my Argument on Integrity, based on Kant again, being a version of Kantianism. It's named "The Ethics of Integrity" and lies on the Blogspot under Whatiswritten777, if you like...
Further again: Hartshorne's "proof" of 1966 build on the same ontological arguments of Anselm and the others. Also, I write "proof" because I assume you will not accept it, regardless! This one, however, new 4-fold modal conception of God, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT, regardless, because it's VALID!!! Thank you! Just a notice to you who think about posting here: Hartshorne wanted to prove necessary God, □(∃y)(Gy), but I've found the significant finding of only proving possible God, ◊(∃y)(Gy), thereby shoving back the critics of Religious people and so to admit them (and myself) seriousness because the possibility can't be REFUTED! I've won!!! Finally: All this speaks of very happy times for religious people in having the undeniable intellectual RIGHT in TRUTH to worship as they like by their Religion! I think this is excellent and if you don't understand this directly, you will after some time! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You All!!!
If the special route to possible God by reality of soul and this notion of deeper meaning and ontological truth of ethics hold, then why not necessary God?
December 25, 2011 at 14:05
I know it doesn't hold formally and I know it's fragile, but still this is a tempting thought, one that lies just a little off! Or what? Good?
December 25, 2011 at 14:07
You should also add telepathy to the above... the soul and so and so...
December 25, 2011 at 16:33
But we who about stuff too... "magic with people" and all the that other stuff of "vodoo-kind"... you get the gist... It's inevitable... "Hell is coming down on Earth to a cinema near you!"

I've also made the days for the Agnosticists' far easier by envisioning the ◊(∃x)(G), possibility of God so that they now /can/ (if they want to) drop the hard question of Either the existence of God/Or NOT the existence of God (God exists or not?). For them, now, I believe, having fairly deep sympathies for that consideration in life, it's just to utter "yes to life"!!!

BUT the Atheists tend to forget that a largely religious world has established the UN, has made the Human Rights Declaration and met across religious and legal borders! That religiousness you speak of is simply not the dominant! Besides, Atheists have LOST one of their most forceful assertion in that religion has been regarded as NOT logical! Religions can NOW CLAIM that they are possibly TRUE! And THIS MATTERS, as much as philosophy EXISTS!

The hard nut lies really with the level of devotion the Atheist has vs. the Religious, and we religious people think this lies more safely within religious contexts, most religions considered, down to Scientology as the smallest!
31 December 2011 17:07

Just the notice on Integrity: I use it in a particular (philosophical) sense and this has to do with my Argument on Integrity, based on Kant again, being a version of Kantianism. It's named "The Ethics of Integrity" and lies on the Blogspot under Whatiswritten777, if you like...
You know, by being religious, you don't lose anything in particular and you get the easier route toward being a morally "educated" person in the old sense of "educated"!

Just a notice to you who think about posting here: Hartshorne wanted to prove necessary God, □(∃y)(Gy), but I've found the significant finding of only proving possible God, ◊(∃y)(Gy), thereby shoving back the critics of Religious people and so to admit them (and myself) seriousness because the possibility can't be REFUTED! I've won!!!
31 December 2011 17:08

These are 5 parts of writing that I've compiled from the following: Facebook and under various YouTube videos and channels! Perhaps some come even from other parts of this blog. I don't know entirely just yet!
31 December 2011 17:10