Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth

Acknowledgements

Below are all those whom I’m grateful for, for various influences that relate to the contents of this text.

Each of the named folks below have received, or will receive, a copy of this text, excepting several members of the intelligence community whom I do not have updated contact information. The best method of contact will be utilized. In any case, I trust this will be received from publication within various shared groups and channels.

Thanks to Special Influences

I want to provide acknowledgement to some key individuals who have provided me support for my intellect in critical ways in formative periods, where I was not myself acknowledged for my own intelligence, despite having already been identified as gifted in youth. These people have been very important for my overall development into a person who has realized nearly completely his own potential. Initially, as a student, I performed very well, but later I became disillusioned with school, and adults, for being largely ignored despite offering kindnesses and obvious intelligence my entire upbringing. In High School I eventually decided to “drop out”, another term I don’t like, and get my equivalency diploma (G.E.D). My future appeared somewhat dreary and uncertain at that time, although I was always extremely self-confident and mostly aware of the nature of my abilities. Independent reading and instruction at a local community college Montgomery College provided a few extremely great instructors who provided exactly the attention I was needing at the right time, and provided acknowledgement of my own distinctive giftedness. At that time, I was also fortunate enough to stumble upon courses on Psychology and Philosophy exposing me to moral philosophy, that included a lineage of thinkers who I already thought much like I did. This brought to my attention minds of people who were really like me finally, who were published because of a thinking style not unlike my own. I had no experience like this in my life until this time and it was like discovering profoundly gifted people that were hard for others to understand thought like I did.

The first I’d like to acknowledge is Bertrand Russell, the deceased eminent philosopher. Upon reading his works, I had the emotional discovery of someone who seemed to be a worthy mentor. I’m not sure all I learned from him, but his influence in my life has been extensive. His works created a pathway for a lifetime love and enjoyment of Philosophy and many other topics, since he was a generalist, and provided me thousands of opportunities for reflecting on a range of topics that I developed from that time to the present day.

Another mentor and teacher who had a great influence is the Philosopher Peter Singer. Peter Singer was an early exposure to professional Moral Philosophy, and convinced me of the importance of expanding our moral behavior to be inclusive of animals. I became a vegetarian in 2000, and vegan in 2001, almost solely due to reflections on his works Practical Ethics, and Animal Liberation. As a result, my buying and eating behavior, and social behavior, have been affected positively for decades, and by reading his texts, I am especially contented and satisfied with my history of moral behavior, for my greatly diminished responsibility for the harms and sufferings of animals and other people. While reading one of his texts, I reached out to him at Princeton with a kind note, as an external student, simply reading his books without being enrolled in his courses. He was kind enough to respond and the simple and candid message from him is still appreciated and has provided some unknown level of encouragement. Reading his works in the same period of my readings of Bertrand Russell, he has also encouraged my love of book reading, and my desire to write a book of my own, including this one. I’ve read a number of his other texts and they have each seemed to be truthful and consistent, and worth utilizing for permanent self-alteration.

Mr. Scott Jacobsen, to my surprise, had already recently interviewed Mr. Singer regarding other interests, and I discovered long after Mr. Jacobsen had already written me with his request for interview, after I wrote the above acknowledgement to Singer, for another book I’m completing, more squarely covering moral philosophy. Peter Singer’s interview with Mr. Jacobsen can be read in Insight Journal. It was shocking to learn the same person interviewing me recently interviewed one of my favorite authors.

My community college instructor as I said was of special significance to me. This is Shuping Wan, a history professor I had from Montgomery College, a Chinese Immigrant, who gave me much needed attention and validation that was entirely unreceived in my years in High School. His teachings and his encouragements caused me to have durable success in academics after a long period of doing much more poorly before being in his class. He was the first instructor I had who would give highly personalized attention, and I was able to develop a relationship with him while I continued my studies at the college, which were always supportive. Recalling his courses I recognize his influence regarding my propensity to be highly unnationalistic, and my desire to avoid advertising generally to avoid false information. Interestingly for part of my career I found myself in digital marketing, but I shunned television for over a decade to avoid seeing anything too irritating. Advertising is too similar to wartime propaganda in my estimation.

These three people have especially influenced me for longer periods, either through many interactions or from many reading experiences, that were solitary. It is interesting to think of how much time I spent, in particular with Mr. Russell and Mr. Singer simply through paper. Hundreds of hours were spent reflecting on their thoughts and my reactions to them. Bertrand Russell was my first intellectual friend, I thought, at one point. I was recurringly saddened reflecting that he was no longer alive, and that my independent conversations were including a writer of now dead recordings. I think others must have had similar experiences, with authors who were greatly valued but were not available for conversation in real life.

Thanks to Other Authors

I have also been influenced regarding the topic of propaganda and media control by by Prof. Noam Chomsky, and like Prof. Singer had a very short email transaction, which was humorously more cranky since my email was a bit rude, which is an irregularity for me (I was young), but his response did also provide some encouragement concerning willingness of various authors to be responsive to inquiries from readers who were enjoying their works.

I would also like to give kind acknowledgement to Mr. Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, for highly intelligent encouragement regarding my non-commitment to any particular religion, along with Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, who wrote a book also supporting my naturalistic and secular outlook. Today I ignore any mention of any diety as a totally unwanted advertising or sales solicitation and encroachment, and focus on the development of my own ethic that is effectively a religion replacement of better quality.

Mr. Dawkins has communicated his experience of death threats from his views, and this was supportive since I would experience the same personally once I gained a certain level of personal eminence. It also relates well to the subject matter of this interview around being cautious of others who might be intelligent but risky individuals, and many of the threats I received like him were via writings received from others.

I am grateful for Prof. Tao, who is working in an abstruse and esoteric field in which few works extend over the last 3 centuries, and without it would no have as much support on my efforts, like Professor Tao, to make changes to the foundations of Mathematics and diversely related fields.

Special thanks to Professor Donald Knuth, of Stanford University, for his publication of the book series The Art of Computer Programming, that comprises a life-work of the sort discussed in this book. This book has aided me in the planning of my project of creating a new computing system better founded on a more natural form of mathematics and logic.

Thanks to Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, writers of the very controversial work The Bell Curve. It is known and understood that the extent of negative publicity and reactiveness to this work must have been greatly threatening, and this issue of reader backlash is related to the author’s desire to support the diminution of problems faced by the desire to create honest scientific publications that help everyone. I obtained my first copy of the Bell Curve in my teens and remember having it in my possession at 17 years old and perhaps earlier. I fit into a strange demographic, both doing poorly in school, at the time, but also being immeasurably intelligent. Reading the demographics there were indicators that I would do extremely well, or extremely poorly, because dropping out of school I knew I would fall in the lower quartile group of performance in High School, and your publication stated that I would have a higher probability of having less life success. Since this is probabilisitic,I did not take it negatively, but many in the public failed to recognize what was utilized was demographic and statistical. There was no good cause for your being targeted, and your data supported my planning, even at that time, when it indicated I could be at risk.

In the present writing and my present efforts is an application of immeasurable intelligence to works, and to experience relating to the high intelligence community and the public. Even at 17 I thought there were some defects in the Bell Curve relating to global data, and this of course relates to ethics affecting the lives of the entire human population. Here are pieces of information that may be of utility for re-examining existing work, and in any event, in the later version, I will provide more details that relate specifically to The Bell Curve, and the flaws I’ve noticed that I’ve only more recently been in a position to provide elucidations for. This work is a preparatory step, with a collaborative mindset. The finding of flaws would not flaw the entire work, and could not; and knowing certain flaws, I am not permitted to join or begin a backlash towards you for your kind and extremely detailed work, that must have included an incredibly large amount of your mental time.

Thank you for supporting the intelligence community and the public with your attempt to compile relevant information that is usable to anyone who can continue the work. Here you are in the company of moral philosophers and the sensitive intelligent who are at risk, and I think it possible to cover all the ethical concerns that any may have regarding ramifications of true inferences of your materials and related publications.

Preface

To Add

Introduction

To Add

Anselm’s Argument

To Add

The Ongological Argument

To Add

Argument of Iakovos Koukas

First communication

From Mr. Koukas:

“Until today there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a theistic God, but there are compelling reasons and indications to consider His existence based on logical arguments and observed phenomena. One such phenomenon is the fine-tuning of the universe, which provides a logical reason to believe in the existence of a cosmic designer. The logical argument derived from fine-tuning strengthens this notion, offering logical support for the existence of God. I am presenting to you here the formal logic of the fine-tuning argument.

The formal logic of the fine-tuning argument:

Premise 1: The universe shows a remarkable degree of fine-tuning, where small changes in the values of fundamental physical constants or initial conditions would make the universe inhospitable to life.

Premise 2: The fine-tuning of physical constants in the universe can only be the result of either chance, physical necessity or design.

Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be reasonably attributed to chance alone, as the likelihood of the observed parameters occurring randomly is exceedingly low, approaching zero within the context of known probability distributions and the limitations of our observable universe.

Premise 4: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be explained by physical necessity alone, as there is no theoretical reason why the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe must take on the values that allow for life.

Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe suggests the existence of a cosmic designer who deliberately set the parameters of the universe to permit the emergence of life.

The above mentioned designer is equated with God, because His traits of omnipotence, omniscience and transcendence align most closely with the attributes necessary to account for the fine-tuning of the universe.”

Second Communication

From Mr. Koukas:

“An additional compelling logical argument supporting the existence of God lies in the complex information encoded within DNA. Here is its formal structure:

Premise 1: The genetic code, found in the DNA of living organisms, contains vast amounts of complex and specified information necessary for the development, functioning and reproduction of organisms.

Premise 2: Information, particularly complex and specified information like that found in the genetic code, is typically associated with the activity of an intelligent agent.

Premise 3: Naturalistic explanations alone, such as random chance or natural selection, fail to adequately explain and prove the origin and complexity of the information found in the genetic code.

Premise 4: Empirical observation and scientific inquiry consistently demonstrate that complex systems with specified information, such as computer programs and written language, invariably originate from the deliberate action of an intelligent agent.

Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of complex and specified information in the genetic code, which parallels the patterns observed in human-designed systems, suggests the involvement of a conscious, intelligent and all powerful creator, commonly referred to as God, in the design and development of living organisms.”

Lack of Logical Formalization

Here we will convert the initial communication with its argument into a more formal translation and variant in order to more fully clarify what is being argued and what the structure and constituent parts happen to be.

Initially we need to consider the lanaguage itself and its employment of various key words that are meaningful for any understanding of what is being communicated, not only to identify the formal logical translation of the argument, but to understand what it is about and what it could be about given differing minds with differing word-understandings. All concepts used in an argument constitute premises for the argument. Firstly, they constitute claims as to the meaningfulness and usability of the terms. They pass or do not pass various validies associated with conceptualization. These are what is sometimes referred to, similarly, as hidden premises. There are premises assuming that the words have particular meanings and are meaningful.

Below is a listing of all concepts and terms.

1. The (indicating unity, uniqueness and oneness).

2. Premise 1

3. The

4. universe

5. shows

6. a

7. remarkable

8. degree

9. of

10. fine-tuning

11. where

12. small

13. changes

14. in

15. the

16. values

17. of

18. fundamental

19. physical

20. constants

21. or

22. initial

23. conditions

24. would

25. make

26. the

27. universe

28. inhospitable

29. to

30. life.

31. Premise 2

32. The

33. fine-tuning

34. of

35. physical

36. constants

37. in

38. the

39. universe

40. can

41. only

42. be

43. the

44. result

45. of

46. either

47. chance

48. physical

49. necessity

50. or

51. design.

52. Premise 3

53. The

54. fine-tuning

55. of

56. the

57. universe

58. cannot

59. be

60. reasonably

61. attributed

62. to

63. chance

64. alone

65. as

66. the

67. likelihood

68. of

69. the

70. observed

71. parameters

72. occurring

73. randomly

74. is

75. exceedingly

76. low

77. approaching

78. zero

79. within

80. the

81. context

82. of

83. known

84. probability

85. distributions

86. and

87. the

88. limitations

89. of

90. our

91. observable

92. universe.

93. Premise 4

94. The

95. fine-tuning

96. of

97. the

98. universe

99. cannot

100. be

101. explained

102. by

103. physical

104. necessity

105. alone

106. as

107. there

108. is

109. no

110. theoretical

111. reason

112. why

113. the

114. fundamental

115. constants

116. and

117. initial

118. conditions

119. of

120. the

121. universe

122. must

123. take

124. on

125. the

126. values

127. that

128. allow

129. for

130. life.

131. Conclusion

132. Therefore

133. the

134. fine-tuning

135. of

136. the

137. universe

138. suggests

139. the

140. existence

141. of

142. a

143. cosmic

144. designer

145. who

146. deliberately

147. set

148. the

149. parameters

150. of

151. the

152. universe

153. to

154. permit

155. the

156. emergence

157. of

158. life.

Contextual information

The contextual information provided gives the interpretation context for the various words that appear in the main argument. These are analyzed to understand the meaningns of the words as they are employed above.

First Paragraph

1. Until
2. today
3. there
4. are
5. no
6. empirical
7. evidence
8. for
9. the
10. existence
11. of
12. a
13. theistic
14. God
15. but
16. there
17. are
18. compelling
19. reasons
20. and
21. indications
22. to
23. consider
24. His
25. existence
26. based
27. on
28. logical
29. arguments
30. and
31. observed
32. phenomena.
33. One
34. such
35. phenomenon
36. is
37. the
38. fine-tuning
39. of
40. the
41. universe
42. which
43. provides
44. a
45. logical
46. reason
47. to
48. believe
49. in
50. the
51. existence
52. of
53. a
54. cosmic
55. designer.
56. The
57. logical
58. argument
59. derived
60. from
61. fine-tuning
62. strengthens
63. this
64. notion,
65. offering
66. logical
67. support
68. for
69. the
70. existence
71. of
72. God.
73. I
74. am
75. presenting
76. to
77. you
78. here
79. the
80. formal
81. logic
82. of
83. the
84. fine-tuning
85. argument.

Last Paragraph

1. The
2. above
3. mentioned
4. designer
5. is
6. equated
7. with
8. God
9. because
10. His
11. traits
12. of
13. omnipotence
14. omniscience
15. and
16. transcendence
17. align
18. most
19. closely
20. with
21. the
22. attributes
23. necessary
24. to
25. account
26. for
27. the
28. fine-tuning
29. of
30. the
31. universe.

We can see that not all of these conceptual premises in the above listing of concepts are ones we would want to dispute or refine at the outset. Some are those that are not especially interesting as part of the structure of the argument utilzed for the accepting or dismissing of the proof as a whole or in its parts. However, some of these concepts do require additional explanation, definition, explication, and so one before one can understand what is being argued, and what the structure of the argument really happens to be. Some concepts here do not seem to pass tests of conceptual validity, including an ability to really identify a meaning that is not disputable, which is part of the test of operational validity in the sciences. Here will be provided some example concepts that appear usable, and some that appear unusuable. Those that are considered unusable will be noted, but this will not impede the continued analysis of the structure of the argument to get an an improved formalization. An improved formalization can always include substitute concepts and expressions, if that appears necessary. It will not remove the utility of first arriving at a better formalization so that it is better understood what formalization would look like upon completion of the process. The argument can be refined by the writer to be a better total argument with a very clearly explained argument formalization, which is another way to say this is how a more full understanding of the total argument is arrived at. This will give opporunity for strongest presentation the author can provide for the argument, giving due opportunity before full criticism is lofted at it. This is a principle of charity within Philosophy which includes a readiness to understand an argument in its apparently strongest form in order to attempt to refute it in its better form.

Stengthened Forms of the Arguments

To Add

Fictions, and Failure of the Approach

To Add

Conclusion

To Add

Correspondence

My Contact Details:

Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, “Mattanaw”:

• cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu,
• CC: mattanaw@mattanaw.com,
• CC: christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org

References

Koukas, I. (2024, March 17). Until today there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a theistic God, but there are compelling reasons. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/iakovos.koukas/posts/pfbid02gyJrnyE5hGxoC1zrY4CgcHmKHNpDsFRbVRGWvv2dYxRddhxMDeupJKJ1Pz25DT6Cl

Koukas, I. (2024, March 17). An additional compelling logical argument supporting the existence of God lies in the complex information encoded within DNA. Facebook.

Koukas, I. (2024, March 18). Integrating Mathematical and Logical Reasoning to Establish the Existence of God: A Multidisciplinary Scientific and Philosophical Approach. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/4GhighIQsocietyEliteGroup/posts/7603523289698301/

Mattanaw. (2023). The Velocity of Significance and Ideation. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: ttp://www.mattanaw.org/velocity-of-significance-and-ideation.html

Glossary

To Add