Automaton

Ontological Argument for Self-Godliness
<ol type="1">[*]I think, therefore I am.[*]Only necessary beings exist, as every aspect of a necessary being must necessarily be necessary, including causal influence (hence the concept of contingency is unsound.)[*]Therefore, (from 1 and 2) I am necessary.[*]I am the only being that exists in my valid range of experience (dreams preclude what I think is the world "out there" means that world really is "out there".)[*]It is logically possible for a world to not exist outside of my head.[*]If it is logically possible for something not to exist, it is not necessary.[*]Therefore, (from 2, 4, 5 and 6) a world does not exist outside of my own head.[*]The universe exists, necessarily, as an aspect of me, inside my own head (from 7.)[*]Whatever necessary condition the universe exists under, that condition can be said to have "created" the universe.[*]Therefore, (from 8 and 9) I created the universe.[*]I have every available avenue of action available to me that is logically possible, because as a necessary being, all the things I cannot do are logically unnecessary, and hence logically impossible (from 2).[*]A being that can do everything that is logically possible is omnipotent.[*]Therefore, from (11 and 12) I am omnipotent.[*]An omnipotent agency cannot have any knowledge limited to it, because the lack of any knowledge would hinder power, and being omnipotent means nothing can be hindered from power.[*]Therefore, from (13 and 14) I am omniscient.[*]God is defined as an entity who is necessary, omnipotent, omniscient and is the creator of the universe.[*]I posses all of these qualities (from 3, 10, 13, and 15.)[*]Therefore, (from 16 and 17) I am God. QED.[/list=a]

Objections
There can be no objections to this argument, because I am omniscient according to premise 15, so nothing I write can be wrong! If you claim this is a tautology, then you have admitted I am right, because a tautology is something that's logically true in every truth category! 100% truth!

Enjoy!

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

excreationist

But can you predict what number will come up on a dice every time? That involves knowing the future. Or flip a coin and cover it - that involves being omniscient about the present.

DarkBronzePlant

Pretty good argument!

However, I'd take particular issue with #2 (I'd challenge its validity). I'd also question your final point, #18. Otters have four appendages, spend time on land and in water, and enjoy seafood. I possess those traits as well, but that doesn't make me an otter!

Automaton

Thanks. I thought of it on the crapper.
Want elaboration? Certain apologists like to cite an argument from contingency/necessity as proof of God. A contingent being, they say, is one that depends on something else for its existence, and thus could "fail to exist". A necessary being, on the other hand, depends on nothing for its existence, as its non-existence would be logically impossible. I could ramble on about the flawed reasoning becoming already apparent here, but my whole argument is just one big, obnoxious, amalgamation of snakeoil reasoning, so I shouldn't speak. To the point, by the law of excluded middle, they claim something is either contingent or it is necessary. They also state that infinite causal regress is impossible, so something necessary must be at beginning of every contingency chain. However, I don't think it would be possible to create a causal link between a necessary entity and a contingent one, because all aspects of a necessary entity must be necessary. You can't have a necessary being that is contingently the color red, for example. This principle, I believe, extends to causal influence as well. Causal influence becomes an aspect of one's being, for if it did not, only the effect of the causative relationship would be definable, and that's impossible. Thus, since contingencies can neither exist in infinite regress or as formed by a necessity, they cannot exist. Deduction from excluded middle, and we have the conclusion that only necessities can exist.
Indeed, because those traits do not make up the whole of what is minimally required for someone to describe that entity as an otter. The traits of four appendages, spending time on land and in water, and enjoying seafood could describe a great many entities, as could the trait of "red". The traits I described as being attributed to God make up the whole of what is minimally required for someone to call it God.

Boone K. Lowe

How can you make all these logical assumptions when we don't live in a logical world?

DMB

What exactly do you mean by "we don't live in a logical world"?

DarkBronzePlant

Ah, but did you send a flesh-and-blood rendition of yourself to earth in order to sacrifice yourself to save your flawed creation?

Automaton

No, and I did not send any prophets named Mohammed either. Such things are the fantasies of man with an overeager imagination.

Automaton

Anyways, here is my Full Refutation: Granted.
But could I not exist? If it is logically possible for me to not exist, then I am contingent (see my definitions elsewhere). To show otherwise, would require that I am necessary, and hence this logic is circular and fails.
By some odd epistemology this may be the case, but we work as functional agents in the world we observe, and for us to function as such, it is required for us to assume that it exists, and is "out there". Otherwise I could not be typing this message to you.
Unproven assertion. It could be the necessary consequence of a necessary entity. To show that this assertion is true, one would have to show that the world outside my head is impossible, and hence, is again, circular.
Granted.
Premises 2, 4 and 5 fail, so this conclusion is not valid.
But premise 5 claims it is logically possible for this world to not exist (even though it is loaded with "outside my head"), and so if we grant premise 5, then the universe cannot be a necessary part of me, either.
This is nothing more than a cheap semantic trick. If one accepts my defintion that anything under the causal influence of a necessary being is part of the necessary aspects of that being, then if I were the color red, under this logic, I would have created the color red. Obviously this wouldn't be so. The notion of "creation" demands that contingent entities can exist.
As premises 8 and 9 are false, this conclusion is invalid.
Circular. "Why can't you do these things?" "They are logically impossible." "Why are they logically impossible?" "Because I can't do them."
Granted.
Since premise 11 is false, this conclusion is invalid.
14 is true, but this conclusion does not follow from the premises. It commits the fallacy of equivocation. In 12, an omnipotent being is given the definition "a being that can do everything that is logically necessary", however in 14 it says an omnipotent being "cannot have anything hindered from its power". And if we use the circular reasoning of 11, I do lack all knowledge, thus it is logically impossible to have all knowledge, thus omniscience is logically impossible, therefore I cannot be omniscient.
These 4 conclusions are all invalid, and so I do not posess all of these qualities.
Are you kidding? There's more flawed reasoning in there than you can shake an extremely large (and possibly mutated) stick at.

DarkBronzePlant

Wait! Wait! Now I'm confused! Here I was all set to worship you; now you tell me you're not god? I don't understand! Please tell me what to think!!!