Writing to The Nobel Prize Literature Organisation by "Over Atheism and its standing in Literature..."

Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:08:01 +0100 (CET)
From "terjelea@gmail.com" (as email from former name, Terje Lea)
To "comments@nobelprize.org"

Dear Nobel Prize in Literature Organisation

It is noted that the standing of Atheism in Literature has been considerable, even marking Hitchen's death loudly by media attention.
I also list these notable names for making this come true, Prize of 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre, Prize of 1957, Albert Camus and Prize of 1950,
Earl (Bertrand Arthur William) Russell!
However, being no opponent to these people's remarkable skills in writing, I like Dr. Russell best for his Principia Mathematica with his friend, Dr. Whitehead!
The writing of mine that soundly refutes Atheism's general attack on the religions by logics and some descriptive attacks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster follows here:
Argument for Modal God as Possibility: Essentially, it goes like this:
The symbolisation of this, finally:
(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".

This goes in light of my argument for a 4-fold Modal God, that 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!

For notice on Logical Notation: 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!

And lastly, by pre-emptive strike: 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!

It's fairly evident that this enters the World community of understanding and our place in the World and is as important to the Religious people's other side, from the Atheist's side above, by Kierkegaard, St. Aquinas and Lady Conway. Thus I think this is a step forward and it is with this religious message of future steadiness that I write to You for informing You on this matter. I hope You enjoy reading this email! Have a Happy New Year!

Yours sincerely,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
Author of the argument above and in general