Before I did not know anything, now I know something about the question you have asked What is Neo-Meinongianism?

• I suppose it is a new philosophical current derived from Meinongianism (also called Udenismo), which was established by Richard Sylvan, an approach that deals mainly with the "entities of fiction".
• In this case, it is applied to the Philosophy of Religion (although it is specified that religion itself is not an entity of fiction, but is a reality, a Faith of millions of people in a God) for the rational understanding of religion .

regards

Jose Luis

https://books.google.com/books?id=ANl2mDO0PskC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=El+neo-Meinongianismo&source=bl&ots=NSQzWyerma&sig=yOEuBYvPMUQ_1OI4zzOt8UBoAyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdlsrPlcnXAhVE2SYKHfGjAMIQ6

Antes no sabía nada, ahora se algo por la pregunta que ha realizado ¿Qué es el Neo-Meinongianismo?

• Supongo que es una corriente filosófica nueva derivada del Meinongianismo (también llamada Udenismo), el cual la estableció Richard Sylvan, enfoque que trata principalmente de los "entes de ficción".
• En este caso, se aplica a la Filosofía de la Religión (aunque se especifica que propiamente la religión no es un ente de ficción, sino que es una realidad, una Fe de millones de personas en un Dios) para la comprensión racional de la religión.

Saludos

José Luis

https://books.google.com/books?id=ANl2mDO0PskC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=El+neo-Meinongianismo&source=bl&ots=NSQzWyerma&sig=yOEuBYvPMUQ_1OI4zzOt8UBoAyI&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdlsrPlcnXAhVE2SYKHfGjAMIQ6AEIMDAA#v=onepage&q=El%20neo-Meinongianismo&f=false

Neo-Meinongianism tells about 'non-existent objects'.

Neo-Meinongianism

(https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-55384-9_10)

NEO-MEINONGIAN NEO-RUSSELLIANS- attched

Really I don't have any idea about this topic.

Well Prof I had to look it up :

About math and philosophy combined - e.g: why Nikola Tesla liked #3

I know why I like #9 :)

Book: Proof and Other Dilemmas: Mathematics and Philosophy by Bonnie Gold, ‎Roger A. Simons

PS- can't relate to "god" component ...

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34387/omnipotence-paradox-defense-and-meinongianism-neo-meinongianism

I also had to look it up. What convoluted reasoning! This is what I gather:

Mathematical platonism is what I would call the normal way of thinking, but it seems, philosphers have issues with it. Platonism says that statements like "3 is a prime number" can be said to be true, EVEN THOUGH a number, such as 3, is not a physical object. So, platonism says, no problem. The number 3 is an abstract object. Done.

For some reason beyond my comprehension, this idea of "abstract object" causes great consternation, so that an opposing "fictionalist" view is that abstract objects cannot be said to be true, hence they are false. So, the number 3 is prime is no more true than the moon being made of green cheese.

So, platonists and fictionalists seem to represent the two extreme camps.

Now come neo-Meinongianists. They will claim that we can go ahead and say that 3 is prime, call that true, but they also do not accept that abstract objects exist. So how do they reconcile this? They delve into what is the meaning of "truth."

My point is, there's a better way to handle this conundrum.

Fictionalists are simply wrong, because they get hung up on "abstract objects." Mathematics is a model to describe reality. So, it's a MODEL. When we say that 4 is an even number, we are saying that if you take 4 apples, you can separate the 4 apples into two equal size groups, of 2 apples each. That's what even numbers describe. The truth of that statement can be domonstrated with real objects, if doing so is so important to make the case. Furthermore, the same truth can be demonstrated with buttons, or bars of soap, or spoons, not just apples. No need to get twisted around the axle with this business about "abstract objects." Say instead, "the math model is valid."

Not to say that "abstract objects" are not true, or not real. We can make any number of claims, on things that aren't physical objects. We can say that someone is a genius, without being able to see a physical object that proves "genius" is present. But this isn't even that complicated, because neo-Meinogianism is about mathematical philosophy. In my unsolicited opinion, this line of reasoning, including fictionalism and neo-Meinongianism, are making mountains out of molehills. A model can be valid, even if the model is not a physical object!