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

A Book and Dissertation on the Refutation of Purely Logical Arguments for Supernaturalisms

Draft State


Author/Editor: Dr. Mattanaw I., Formerly “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh”, Retired

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President, Advisor, and Chief Scientist at Social Architects and Economists International

CEO, Playntext, CEO, PlainText



Copyright© Mattanaw I., the author, and for all editorial work performed and all revisions, including all audiovisual and text materials, book design, print design, and anything else related to the work.

The Moral Rights of the Author are Hereby Asserted.


This Book and Dissertation argues that there is no viable pathway for the construction of a viable and tenable purely logical argument for the existence of one or any number of creators and sustainer of the universe or everything. It is additionally argued, that there is no conjoint pathway to make a logical argument additionally leveraging scienctific tools and methods to arrive at similar conclusions. Example historical arguments utilizing the alternative assumption that such a method can be used are analyzed. Newer example arguments are provided including one from a theistic writer for additional analysis, and to show how newer arguments fit into the same lineage and historical context as earlier well-known arguments like Anselm’s Argument and The Ontological Argument. It is argued further that the religious lineage traces back to the ancient origins of theism itself, and in the myths of ancient peoples. Similarities between these original lines of thinking and various world religions are discussed, linking the propenesity to form such arguments to cultural anthropology and the entire variety of cultures and religions that have existed to date. Limitations are discussed regarding the author’s ability to survey all religions and cultures and weaknesses in generalizations of conclusions to all cultures and religions and applicability to monotheistic cultures. It is argued that naturual logic, semi-formal logic, and formal logic constitute technological apparatus that is permanently insufficient to satisfy the objectives of those making cosmological arguments of any form whatsoever. Additionally, it is shown that and empirical scientifica approach using a toolset of the sciences would in the past, present, and future be required to construct the best possible argument required to make a reasonable attempt at a viable argument for a creator or sustainer of the universe or everything. The article concluses that even an effort using conjoint logical argumentation and the requisite scientific tools and methods that there is no viable pathway for this kind of argumentation, even in the attempt to create a best possible and strongest case. In order to demonstrate this, the author uses logical analysis to show that empirical information is required for the definition of terminology that would otherwise make an logical or scientific argumentation vacuous. Specific terminology used is analyzed more thoroughly than is typically done in any paper presenting logical analysis, and terms tracing lineage to myth and origination of religions are identified. In trying to ascertain the meanings of specific terms requisite for the best presentation of a logico-scientific argument, it is determined that they are unavailable. The cause for the unavailability of definitions of these terms is determined to be due to the origination in myth, which is comprised to a large degree of fiction. It is concluded that the terms can be scientifically demonstrated to be myth using an interdisciplinary approach employing the findings of a number of sciences. Since key terms are fiction in origin they are found to be false concepts, and that their employment in any natural language discourse results in statements that are either meaningless or greatly reduced in meaning. The veracity of statements cannot be determined purely logically and the only way to determine their veracity is the method of determining if they are fictional in nature using the interdisciplinary approach. Although this is sufficient to conclude that the dissertation’s thesis is true, additional argumentation is provided indicating that the logical approach is untenable. The logical approach is shown to be largely missing in the style of argumentation since Anselm, and that the logic’s utilized are insufficient. It is also shown that the logical approach cannot culminate in a mathematical style of proof that is desired, and that the tools utilized simply cannot produce a viable argument. It is concluded that there appears to be no mehodological approach that can be employed by those wanting to make an argument that there can be known any number of creators or sustainers of the universe or everything. It is also argued that there are flaws in the conception of the “universe” as a word for “everything”, with the conclusion that even within the sciences that there is an inability to provide scope, such that all conversation about what the universe contains is insufficient, and that this issue is not only one for those who are the subject of this paper but anyone in the sciences.


Edit History


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.


To Add


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


To Add


My Contact Details:

Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, “Mattanaw”:

  • CC:,
  • CC:


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.

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.

Mattanaw. (2023). The Velocity of Significance and Ideation. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: ttp://


To Add