Consider this:
Can you think of something that is meaningful and coherent but can never exist? Consider round squares. We know they can never exist. What’s the difference between a round square and a unicorn? We know that unlike a round square, a unicorn can exist and may well be existing right now in some other planet, galaxy, or universe. If a unicorn has never existed and can never exist, then it’s just like a round square (can never exist has never existed). But it’s not like a round square. The crucial difference is that existence accommodates unicorns, whilst it does not accommodate round squares.
Now consider the concept of omnipotence. It’s not like a round square, and unlike a unicorn, it cannot come into existence. If we reject that that which is omnipresent is also omnipotent, then we are by definition saying that the concept of omnipotence is like a round square (existence cannot accommodate it). But this is absurd because omnipotence has a clear semantical value and it brings with it logical implications (nothing can become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state). So existence must be able to accommodate it.
There may well be parallel universes wherein which a place exists that matches the description of Narnia (provided that there is no absurdity inherent in Narnia). At the very least, there can be a place that matches the description of Narnia. Existence accommodates this. So if matter behave in a certain way or the Big Bang happened different, we could have a place like Narnia. What’s the alternative, that we say Narnia is an impossibility? Aren’t we then treating Narnia the same as a round square? Aren’t we being inconsistent then?
It may well be that you develop the potential to shoots lasers out of your eyes. All it takes for these things to occur is for matter to behave in a certain way. And if we view existence as infinite and eternal (which we have to if we want to avoid paradoxes in our belief system) then the occurrence of all these possibilities (there being a parallel universe with you shooting lasers out of your eyes etc.) become more realistic.
Again, can you think of something that is meaningful and coherent but can never exist? And with that in mind, how do you account for concepts such as infinite, eternal, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence?
You cannot shoot lasers out of your eyes without the right circumstances being in place (it would be absurd otherwise). With the right physiological change occurring in you, you being able to shoot lasers out of your eyes, becomes reality. So you shooting lasers out of your eyes, is a hypothetical possibility. As in existence can bring it about. What’s the alternative, that we say existence can’t bring it about? Do we have any authority to say this?
You have in you the belief that the imagination is only limited by absurdities. If it’s not absurd and it’s not meaningless, you can imagine it. Yet when it comes to existence, you believe that existence is more limited. What justifies this belief? What has lead to this belief? Is it not more coherent rationally to view existence as able to bring about all meaningful and non-contradictory state of affairs?
If I am told there’s a demon in my bathroom, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a hypothetical possibility. I can imagine a demon in my bathroom, so at the very least, this means that matter or existence can behave in a way wherein which a demon in my bathroom occurs. Whether it does this or not is a different matter. But whether it can do this or not, the answer is that it certainly can (provided that there is nothing absurd about this)
Only when something is contradictory can we say…it is not true of existence or existence cannot bring it about
When something is not contradictory, we have to say…it is true of existence or existence can bring it about