The Making of the NDNID Paper - The NDNID Paper - 2 Ways, History and Work Approach

The Idea of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design as Defence to Religious Belief

Introduction.



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.

Clearly, there are the other aspects too, like Pascal's Wager, why God should exist or not, the appeal of God for being considered as real. I've also gone through, quite rigourously, the position of ethics, and morality with it, in the World and how it connects, possibly, with intelligence, well inspired by Kierkegaard.

We recall easily from Kierkegaard, from secondary literature, that his system of text contains, by crude description, a kind of evolving levels, that can be named aesthetics, ethics, and religion.

We have also been supported well by other authors too, like Leibniz, Aquinas, Conway,  and Plotinus, of whom all drives us toward a fairly hard belief in both ethics and health, in aspiring to being God's miracle on the planet Earth, each and every one of us, God-believers, first and foremost, all religions, I guess now, based on the wiser aspects of information society and the fact that laws need refinement, redefining in some sense, every religion as "caring for the religious spirit in which it has been written".

This has gone on for many years now, as I can recall, all the way from 16, seriously speaking.

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)

1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)

2. □(∃x)(Dx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)

1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A

2. □(∀x)(Cx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

Comment: 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

------------------------------

7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Comment: 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.

(3)

1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Mx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)

1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Ex) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: 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".

Pacal's Wager.

The worry of the agnostics.

The value of defence and not proof.

The limitations to science and scientific influence.

The definition of God in relation to science and the prospects of science.

The classical notions by relations of science to religions.

Main Part I - The Argument.

[also the 5 arguments by logical structures and the rest, 4+1 combined]

Main Part II - The Reasoning.

Notes: [using two sections, the usage of "Notes" and "References", not that it matters, but I think it yields stiffness as well as flexibility.]

Notes.

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.

References.

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:

S. Kierkegaard
- some of the best considerations for a definite God
Aquinas
- 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.
St. Anselm
- 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"!
2013-03-07.
2013-05-17.

Objection to the International Blur of Power - The UN Sky

The former Interpol discussion has made it clear that even Interpol has had a need "to have its legs into one by one nation" because the instructions and international police work simply has become too messy formerly, by history record. Its on this note of wisdom that I object to bulging idiot governance of UN that speaks  against the serious political science and I advice the (financial) accounts of the UN to follow the accountable patters still, that UN represents international agreement and national accountability and that indirect-indirect delegation of power from the nations is one that doesn't deal exactly more power than that, making it necessary to negotiate the agreements with the respective national assemblies to establish it.

So instead of "flashing various (agent) cards", of diplomatic status too, of authority and being by very special agant (Mulder) then rather the extra attention toward certain problems like in this case a list of crimes to cover where money, yes, that the money goes to Interpol/Europol/FBI. This must be the objective answer. UN isn't some blurred political power in the sky and never will be either (if we bother to discipline the organisation properly, holding consciousness to it every year).

Keyword: reporting (accurate), that's right, the report, one d*mn job duty, the reporting.

UN: reporting (accurate), international agreement and discussion over international matters (toward agreement/making explicit notes).

(This is for public education if nothing else.)

The Ecology Points - By Applied Ethics, Most Importantly and Further...

Combatting the Overpopulation

Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.

I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.

(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)

I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!

Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem

In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)

(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)

Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.

PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.