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.