The Prince James Weak Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Prince_James]

The Prince James Weak Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

- Or -

The Prince James Ontological Argument for the Reasonableness of a Limited God

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

II. All which is possible has, is, or will manifest/ed.

III. A logically consistant God can be imagined.

IV. Therefore, God is either necessary or possible.

 

[Sarkus]

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

II. All which is possible has, is, or will manifest/ed.

III. A logically consistant God can be imagined.

IV. Therefore, God is either necessary or possible.

A large flaw is in II. I can imagine that I am in Australia on Saturday watching the rest of the 1st Test Match between England and Australia.

This is a possibility although it is unlikely to happen.

Your II suggests that if it is possible it has, is or will manifest.
So if I don't go to Australia today - I will eventually go and watch the same match at the same time????
This is clearly not possible.

Given the flaw in II, the rest is irrelevant.

God remains a possibility - few deny it - but possibilities will not ALL come to be.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

A large flaw is in II. I can imagine that I am in Australia on Saturday watching the rest of the 1st Test Match between England and Australia.

This is a possibility although it is unlikely to happen.

Actually, I'd argue this: If it is possible that you could be, such will manifest. That is to say, in order for something to be possible it must manifest at least once to demonstrate such possibility. If not, how can it be judged to be possible?

Contingency demands actuality.

Moreover, given infinite time and infinite space, it would seem impossible for anything which is not impossible (such as a square-circle or something of the like) to not manifest an infinite amount of times.

Your II suggests that if it is possible it has, is or will manifest.
So if I don't go to Australia today - I will eventually go and watch the same match at the same time????
This is clearly not possible.

I would argue that, eventually, an exact duplicate of yourself in every manner and respect will be formed that will do just this. In fact, excluding identical-in-property but distinct-in-space parts, this is all ready happening an infinite amount of times over.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually, I'd argue this: If it is possible that you could be, such will manifest. That is to say, in order for something to be possible it must manifest at least once to demonstrate such possibility. If not, how can it be judged to be possible?

Possibility does not require occurrence. Otherwise a unique event could never be possible until it occurs? Rubbish.

I would argue that, eventually, an exact duplicate of yourself in every manner and respect will be formed that will do just this. In fact, excluding identical-in-property but distinct-in-space parts, this is all ready happening an infinite amount of times over.

But it would not have happened at the precise time, with the precise identical make-up of every single thing in the Universe? No - so it defeats your argument.

Possibility != Actuality.

Otherwise you need to prove that it does.


A further weakness to your argument goes as follows:
If you can prove that all possibilities actuallty exist - then you would prove that not only does God exist - but also that God does NOT exist - as both would be possible (through your original point I - in that if it can be imagined it must be possible....).

So God both exists - and does not exist.

Paradox.

Can not thus be possible to conclude God exists through your argument.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Possibility does not require occurrence. Otherwise a unique event could never be possible until it occurs? Rubbish.

It could never be known to be possible beforehand. Moreover, if it never occurs at all then it cannot be said to have been possible to begin with. There'd have to be some flaw in designating it as a possibility. Some innate contradiction which invalidates it.

Essentially: Given infinite space and infinite time, if something does not manifest ever within this time period and within this space, then it cannot be said to have ever been possible. The word would have, quite litterally, lost its meaning.

But it would not have happened at the precise time, with the precise identical make-up of every single thing in the Universe? No - so it defeats your argument.

There are three answers to this:

1. A situation similar to the ManY World's Theory is true. Every action spawns a distinct timeline when faced with a choice.

2. Possibility can be conceived as ignoring either time or space. That is to say, it can either manifest at a different time or in a different place. If at a different time, aeons in the future or elsewhere in space, the exact copy of you will go to the game. Given an ignoring of space, at this very moment an infinite copy of you are all ready going to the game.

Or 3. There is no possible, only the necessary. Due to a strict determinism, only those things which can be found in said deterministic system, can possibly be. Yet the source for this would have to be found that can invalidate so many acceptable necessities.

A further weakness to your argument goes as follows:
If you can prove that all possibilities actuallty exist - then you would prove that not only does God exist - but also that God does NOT exist - as both would be possible (through your original point I - in that if it can be imagined it must be possible....).

Presumably, the argument for God himself (which is not included in the ontological argument) would also demonstrate why its non-existence would be unimaginable but for ignorance. That is to say, one could not positively affirm that such could not be the case, but only assume such things.

For instance: Some might people claim they can imagine a square-circle just by referencing it. But clearly, this is absurd, as they can neither imagine it, nor base any reality on it. Thus it is not imaginable.

Also, more would rest on whether God is necessary or possible. If necessary, then the paradox could never come to be. If possible, then the paradox would similarly never come to be, as God would be one day existent, the other not. Both sides would equally manifest and equally fail to manifest at certain times.

 

[Shaitan]

james shall we just say you cant see the flaws, in your arguement, and leave it at that.

 

[Prince_James]

Shaitan:

Can we say that Rakis is dead?

 

[lightgigantic]

The Prince James Weak Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

- Or -

The Prince James Ontological Argument for the Reasonableness of a Limited God

I imaginethese points can be unpacked quite a bit I will stumble in anyway and we shall see where it goes.

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

Can one imagine something that is impossible? Like for instance can one take two possible phenomena and merge them into an impossible phenomena (like the already mentioned "round square")?

II. All which is possible has, is, or will manifest/ed.

ok

III. A logically consistant God can be imagined.

whether that imagination tallies with reality could be debatable - like for instance I cold imagine that I am god (logical things are not necessarily truthful, eg

all pigs have wings
all horses are pigs
therefore all horses have wings)

IV. Therefore, God is either necessary or possible.

I think it is a weak ontological argument for god

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

Can one imagine something that is impossible? Like for instance can one take two possible phenomena and merge them into an impossible phenomena (like the already mentioned "round square")?

I would argue that one cannot. That one can give a coherent account of something such as a square-circle, envision it in mind, or otherwise postulate its existence beyond referencing its absurdity.

whether that imagination tallies with reality could be debatable - like for instance I cold imagine that I am god (logical things are not necessarily truthful, eg

all pigs have wings
all horses are pigs
therefore all horses have wings)

In so much as you are correct that a syllogism doesn't need a reference to reality in order to be constructed, you are correct that we can warp such things. However, any logical statement in accords with reality would have to be able to prove. If one can find that sort of logical consistancy in a conception of God, it is necessary that he is either possible, or existent, at said time. For such would be imaginable.

 

[Syzygys]

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

For example timetravel isn't possible nor necessary, but still can be imagined. So did I just shot a giant hole into your argument?

Also you don't deal with the plurality of gods...

 

[Prince_James]

Syzygys:

If it is imaginable without contradiction - that is to say, if the thought is imaginable without a disregard for the very underpinnings which the imagination rests upon - then it is necesarily possible. However, if one thinks "a square-circle is a weird object that is sort of a circle with fuzzy square edges sort of pasted onto it" then one is not discussing "a square-circle", just as one would not be discussing time-travel if one is not ascribing to it a rigid logic. That is to say, what one would be imagining something is entirely equivalent to claiming "a square-circle can exist!".

However, if the time travel you can imagine is in accords with what time travel would entail, then it is indeed possible.

 

[James R]

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

Is it possible that an invisible purple dragon called Herbert lives in my garage, because I can imagine him?

II. All which is possible has, is, or will manifest/ed.

If you agree that Herbert is possible, do you also agree that Herbert is or will be manifested?

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

Is it possible that an invisible purple dragon called Herbert lives in my garage, because I can imagine him?

If you agree that Herbert is possible, do you also agree that Herbert is or will be manifested?

Although the likelyhood of such a being coming to be is extremely small, the combination is inevitable in infinite space and time. Presuming that Herbert does not require square-circles to operate, that is to say.

But yes, a creature fitting the description you gave, dubbed Herbert by a man, is assured to manifest.

 

[James R]

Must Herbert obey all the usual laws of physics?

If so, must God obey all the usual laws of physics?

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

It depends if the laws of physics are necessities or chance occasions. If necessities, then Herbert has to obey the laws of physics. If not, no.

This is presuming that Herbert does not make recourse to magic or if magic is possible in theory.

I would also say that it is a given that any reasonable, logically consistant God, would have to follow possibile courses of actions (if he can even act at all). Whether this implies a strict accordance with physical laws depends on what wold be manifestable on a level more powerful than that, if one could give a reason to suggest such exists.

 

[Kron]

I. Only that which is possible or necessary can be imagined.

The impossible can certainly be imagined.

 

[Sarkus]

Although the likelyhood of such a being coming to be is extremely small, the combination is inevitable in infinite space and time. Presuming that Herbert does not require square-circles to operate, that is to say.

PJ, please explain why anything possible is "inevitable in infinite space and time"?
There are an infinite positions between 0 and 1 - but none of them are 2.
If the universe slowly reduces to nothing but an extremely thin sea of the simplest particles plus a bit of heat - and lasts like that for infinite time (an imaginable possibility) - how then does this satisfy your "anything is possible" claim?

Also - you have stated previously that every event needs to occur before one can say it is possible.
This is, to be blunt, bollox.
EVERY event in the Universe is unique - in space, time, composition etc.
No two events will ever occur in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time, with exactly the same composition.
Therefore, every event is unique.
And according to you - every event is thus impossible until it occurs.

Ludicrous.

 

[Prince_James]

Kron:

I'd have you give me an example of something which is necessarily impossible and yet can be imagined?

Sarkus:

PJ, please explain why anything possible is "inevitable in infinite space and time"?
There are an infinite positions between 0 and 1 - but none of them are 2.
If the universe slowly reduces to nothing but an extremely thin sea of the simplest particles plus a bit of heat - and lasts like that for infinite time (an imaginable possibility) - how then does this satisfy your "anything is possible" claim?

I am not here dealing with a finite, expanding universe. I am dealing with the full extent of existence. That is to say, this universe, and all "around" it. The expansion (and finite past) itself speaks of "the beyond" (and I mean that phrase non-religiously).

EVERY event in the Universe is unique - in space, time, composition etc.
No two events will ever occur in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time, with exactly the same composition.
Therefore, every event is unique.
And according to you - every event is thus impossible until it occurs.

In so much as events share categorical similarities, one can discuss events of that type. That is to say, an electromagnetic phenomena would be based on the same laws that all future electromagnetic phenomena would be based on, thereby giving them a possibility. But as far as I know, there is no way to judge future contigent events assuming there is no way to analytically deduce the full extent of contingent realities.

If you can present to me an a priori way to deduce electromagnetism, gravity, elasticity, thermite reactions, toadstool growth, et cetera, specificially from some logical necessity, then we can have a foundational knowledge for all things. At this moment, it is beyond my ken to offer you such, but perhaps you have a method.