The Idea of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design as Defence to Religious Belief
This work comes into existence because I've been thinking about the requirements to a rational belief in religion. I've started, almost as Descartes has done it, to examine exactly why I believe in religion.
As common in logics, square brackets are put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. Square brackets also make for better pedagogics, that only using the round brackets has a confusing capacity.
I've "imported" an addition from the Philosophy Now forum that has been written there 15. Jan. 2011.
Kripke - the distinction between necessary and possible.
[+ the ones below]
Middle part to belong to one of the Main Section 2 probably:
Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper):
Work notes added by these, just for some kind of notice:
Note1: Important! This is work in progress. No objection to the style here presented is tolerated or accepted on any (imagined) professional ground whatsoever! Formatting is thus not ready yet for the CSM-consistency.
Yes, the concepts and names are here strewn, you can begin to look them up yourself as well as the idiots can leave the books to themselves and "get to the objects" of Heidegger and more...! It would have said: "Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper), while in "Hurwegen", the improper Norway under Insect-Jens, the PM also:", but not like that here.
The considerations for NDNID:
- some of the best considerations for a definite God
- almost unmistakenly /the/ reference for a best/most fundamental sense for God, along with Kierkegaard, the unbeatable brothers of Religious Philosophy for the believers!
Pascal's Wager (God or not God)
- too weak. that considering God would demand more thought than only "God or not God"
Kripke's paper "Naming and Necessity"
- thorough studies of this text have been crucial, in my head, to achieving the new notion of NDNID
The Dogmatic Debate, the Fideists and the Theists, the dogmas necessary to believe in God, by the classical "Church notions"
- that I have kept a keen eye to the "camp of positions" debates to these above notions, that they have had their very special conceptions for God.
- The first argument of the modal kind to consider, usually also as reference for the others to follow, by description also.
Alving Plantinga's use of 5-S modality sentence, that possible, possible, possible yields "Necessarily God" when I have in fact never believed in "Necessary God" because the idea of God has seemed "too massive, too "magical", too far outside our sense and proof of reality, also by science".
- therefore, I've caught a type of description by Kierkegaard and Aquinas as the best before realizing that "possible God" would make it happen under the "best and greatest" pro-God with adding the 4 elements (by movie-making also, you may say movie-making studies) toward a seriously possible God!
This text contains the most of the conception for my 4 elements of possible-God! Yes, this has been a work after the profound studies. I have gotten anywhere near it, NDNID, without the input of crucial intellectual matters, and then I have skipped many light-weight "educators"!