Defences for God - The Religious Everywhere WIN THROUGH

[Aetixintro]

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, it is grounded on this:

* The Privacy Argument.
- nothing new from the Atheists.

General, deductive outline:

Privacy holds the best judgment that makes the Bible/God more appealing
Privacy holds the best judgment
The Bible/God is more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: Privacy holds the best argument
G: The Bible/God is more appealing

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins.
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging. With Se7en-movie backing this up as description.

General, deductive outline:

The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive and that as the Bible makes the case for the other life God becomes more appealing
The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
S: The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
G: The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

1 | S
2 | S ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | S 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the argument can hold another logical line in splitting G into two parts, invoking 2 more lines of logical notation, but essentially the argument stays the same.

* Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design.
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
Type of logic for this, NDNID: Quantified Existential (Predicate) Logic
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
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. In a definite sense, therefore, God "as idea" threads through the Possible modality to obtain as necessary.

It is noted that as the NDNID holds its own logics, it acts together with the Priest Stories in securing the bottom line, this makes the Religious side the rock solid fortress for Faith in God, ecumenically.

* The ESP-God Debate.
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves.

General, deductive outline:

If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true, the case for God is more credible.
If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
E: If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | E
2 | E ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | E 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the "if" standing can here be seen as strong or weak alike. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, initially do not bother to hold more than the weak "if" rather than the definitely proven case for ESP/Telepathy. This is at least the recommendation.

* The Descartes' Phantom Feelings.
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion.

General, deductive outline:

As The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science, the case for God is more credible.
The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
D: The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | D
2 | D ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | D 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Van Lommel Studies.
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)

General, deductive outline:

As The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls, the case for God is more credible.
The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
L: The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | L
2 | L ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | L 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

The possible 7th point: There's another one too, with similar structure: if some aspects more prove true, in addition to the above, by the "priest stories" then God further... But this is one is for the moment dicy or more dicy than the telepathy argument...

General, deductive outline:

If The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences then case for God is more credible.
The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in Near-Death Experiences
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

Again, The Priest Stories is subject to a kind of limbo of standing, into how it is supposed to be placed with the rest of the logics above. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, just listen to these stories, of troubles with the corrupt minds and what events have brought us in terms of history. This is at least the recommendation.

Besides, from the above:

1. Stronger Religion Every Day!

The Atheists have failed to provide
* soul and not-soul alike - soul found, at least to some plausibility.
* phantom feelings and not-phantom feelings - phantom feelings found, crucially by (f)MRI, two alike.
* telepathy and not-telepathy - telepathy found by increased awareness and research, at least more credibly too, also by millions' personal experience, just ask them about feelings and "emotional awareness".

Let's not hear them whine about not-(possible-)-God (not-â‹„-G) too because it makes them look awkward.

It is noted that Phantom feelings can be found, also, by voluntary surgery, laying one underarm in the freezer, and confirmed by (f)MRI in a couple of months, perhaps faster without entering the problem of these people who have had a tragic event in their lives and who wish to not be part of research.

2. Religion, Ecumenism and Humanism Together - How They Match.

Ecumenically religious humanism, just in case too much troubles over the details. 3. to yourself.
Ecumenically religious. 2. to yourself.
Then, fx. Christian and Scientologist. 1. to yourself.

That the best version of Humanism belongs equally much to Religious people as the Humanists themselves, insofar as they only supply one type of "life view"/"orientation in life", i.e., not citing any particular religious view, not to say that... the privacy notions...
Ecumenism holds from the encyclopedia:
[( ek -yoo-meh-nishm, i- kyooh -muh-nizuhm)]
"A movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations."

By
L. F. Olsnes-Lea © 2013

Notes:
1. This work is a summary of my NDNID from my web-pages, from my work through the jr. high school, my contributions to the ESP and God debate by mSomatism and general logical work by these other investigations into arguments and defences for God, like the Privacy Argument.
2. Atheism has lost it's foundation mainly because of "6+1" and the other contributions for defending God and Religions by hearts and minds. Because of this, Atheism has also fallen outside academia in at least one sense because it fails anymore to present intelligent/intellectual opposition.
3. The academic contribution always lies inside truth and civilisation insofar as civilisation proves sustainable under honest discussion. After 2000 years, it probably does either way, after working up various important aspects such as the subjects themselves, ethics, law, political science, science in general, mathematics and medicine. Well, well, you can add the rest, engineering, architecture, so on...

References:
1. ESP and God Debate is a debate for unknown length of time, that is, my reference point for it is originating from some Psychology Today article that claims Telepathy to not exist.
2. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings is a project that has been carried through, philosophically, by Richard Swinburne.
3. The Van Lommel Studies has been carried out by Van Lommel of Holland, presumably.
[More information for these references later, in accordance possibly, by CMS.]
4. Ecumenism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ecumenism (accessed: September 20, 2013).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism .
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism .
8. The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins has a film to it, "Se7en", starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, but actually written as a "test" with Lista Ungdomsskole, where they have literally stolen it from me, also with possible trauma to go, either directly or by severe torture threats, even, maybe, checked out by tech-ears/tech-eyes (cochlea-implants, eyes/ears).
9. The references for my own work, starting with NDNID some time ago, but with other ideas and work having the origins from late 80s and possibly the early 90s, "with 3 communication vectors and one mass communication idea and cast by Se7en".

Source: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/201 ... sm-is.html. Author: L. F. Olsnes-Lea

[Aetixintro]

Note on our side to The Logical Soundness as stiffness to logical demand of quality.

Besides, the powerlist of our philosophers

The power list of philosophers is thus:
St. Anselm
St. Aquinas
Dr. Leibniz
Dr. S. Kierkegaard (of Denmark)
Lady Conway
Rev. G. Bruno
(Dr.) Plotinus of ancient Greece
Dr. René Descartes (Doctor philosopher, of Holland/Belgium/France) - author of "The Meditations", short too, please check it out (a bit difficult, not for children)

with more modern names:
Dr. A. Plantinga
Dr. R. Swinburne (Descartes' (Phantom) Feelings _under_, strictly, his Faculty of Oxford)
Dr. W. Craig Lane

with my own contribution, "ending Atheism for good, it being "moved under Sociology of Crime, as matter of objection", "6+1", the NDNID, God and ESP, Descartes' (Phantom/fMRI) Feelings etc.

Two names more to remember which add strength but in a different way, ethically/theologically:
Hon. Rev./Dr. Thomas Paine (Dr. Arts/Philosophy)
Hon. Rev./Dr. L. Ron Hubbard (Dr. Arts/Philosophy outside US subversion, see his history, supporting university/general education)

Add the ones you like! Cheers! - Bye!

PS: There's a posting from http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/201 ... n-and.html that may make you "The Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So".

[Danmark]

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, . . . .

Nonsense. Quite literally, non sense. In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

Sir Alfred held the Wykham Chair, Professor of Logic at Oxford from 1959 to his retirement in 1978.

[Furrowed Brow]

* The Privacy Argument.
- nothing new from the Atheists.

General, deductive outline:

Privacy holds the best judgment that makes the Bible/God more appealing
Privacy holds the best judgment
The Bible/God is more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: Privacy holds the best argument
G: The Bible/God is more appealing

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

Okay so you are using a Fitch style proof for what is a modus ponens argument. But what the heck does "privacy holds the best argument" mean? I mean really, that one needs some explaining.

I don't see how this ends atheism. If Atheists' hold private arguments I guess this means they do not find the bible appealing. For your argument to work atheists must lack private arguments all together. Likewise Hindus and Buddhists and so forth and anyone who does not find the bible more appealing.

This leads me to think that you are not saying this proves the bible is more appealing and are trying for the weaker claim that "the bible/God is more appealing" is a valid deduction given your assumptions at lines 1 and 2. Well ok, for what that is worth.

But that still only makes sense in a limited universe of discourse that only involves bible believers, but you are claiming a universal of discourse that includes everything. hmm that ain't going to work.....unless anyone who does not find the bible more appealing cannot hold a private argument and therefore they are barred from having the best judgement.

Really can't see what weight you think this argument carries. Picking away at this shows you are assuming what you want to prove, which is that non bible believers do not think so well or make such good judgments as those that do. Once we assume this your argument works, if we do not assume this your argument fails.

[Furrowed Brow]

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, . . . .

Nonsense. Quite literally, non sense. In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

Sir Alfred held the Wykham Chair, Professor of Logic at Oxford from 1959 to his retirement in 1978.

I don't think you need to point to Ayer, Quine was an atheist and did not have a lot of time for metaphysics either. seems strange to want to associated an argument against atheism with an atheist logician.

[Danmark]

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, . . . .

Nonsense. Quite literally, non sense. In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

Sir Alfred held the Wykham Chair, Professor of Logic at Oxford from 1959 to his retirement in 1978.

I don't think you need to point to Ayer, Quine was an atheist and did not have a lot of time for metaphysics either. seems strange to want to associated an argument against atheism with an atheist logician.

Want to try that again, in English this time? BTW, it is not the personal beliefs of the authors that is at issue, it is the arguments themselves.

[iamtaka]

In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

How did he demonstrate this?

[Danmark]

In Language, Truth and Logic (1936), when he was just 25 A.J. Ayer demonstrated that religious discourse is meaningless, since religious language is unverifiable and as such literally nonsense.

How did he demonstrate this?

You could read Language, Truth and Logic, or you could take a short cut and look up 'unverifiable.'

[iamtaka]

You could read Language, Truth and Logic, or you could take a short cut and look up 'unverifiable.'

You should never assume I ask a question out of ignorance.

Ayer changed his definition of verification between the first edition (1936) and second edition (1946) of Language, Truth and Logic. Why?

Alonzo Church provided a well-known critique of the second edition in the Journal of Symbolic Logic (1949) which is often considered destructive to Ayer's attempts. Why?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

I didn't see a debate question so I can only assume that you were preaching.

Hebrew mythology is unreasonable, illogical, self-contradictory, and has no more merit than Greek mythology. It has already been proven to be false beyond any reasonable doubt.

It survived through the dark ages, and only came into the modern age via the momentum of superstitious fears, and romantic hopes and dreams of those who believe they will win a gift of eternal life and see their deceased loved ones again.

This superstitious momentum can't carry it much further into the future. Now it will be examined more closely and found to be absurdly unreasonable. It won't be long now before it's officially placed on the shelf marked "Fiction" right alongside its mother, Greek Mythology.