Check his history, he is never wrong. Complete waste of time.

Why does something = God?

God is the creator. You can use 'creator' instead of God if you like.

As I noted, you either don't understand what I'm saying or you're just being really stubborn and obtuse about it.

This is what you think I'm saying. You are looking at whether (A) and (B) are consistent given (1). You are bracketing the truth of (A) and (B) as a separate object, essentially creating a hypothetical framework within a truth framework.

This is what I'm actually saying. If it is true (really true) that (1) is true, then to assume further that (2) and (3) are also true (really true) creates a logical contradiction. I'm not creating a hypothetical secondary universe. I'm considering what is true (really true) within the given framework. The additional statements do no cohere with the truth of the given universe. And so further assuming (2) and (3) leads to a contradiction.

As I noted fairly early on, the challenge with the framework of "possible universes" is a question of what it means to be a "possible universe." Is defining a set of consistent logical statements the same as positing a "possible universe"? It's far from obvious that this is sensible.

But remember, I asked you about this directly

You said no. So you think

creates a logical contradiction but

doesn't. There is simply no definition of "logical contradiction", no matter how non-standard, where that makes a lick of sense. It blatantly violates the incompleteness theorem at a basic, basic level. So you can pretend like I'm not understanding you. But the problem is I do understand you and also understand why you are wrong.

I don't see any point in continuing until you can admit the obvious, basic facts: PA+ not Con(PA) does not lead to a contradiction if PA is consistent and has a nonstandard, countable model akin to how the standard integers are a countable model of PA.

What, exactly, did the creator create?

Everything other them Himself.

Ah, so that's a misunderstanding. Because the bolded was unclear. The "by itself" sounded as if you were isolating it in the same hypothetical way that you were working with PA + Not(Con(PA)) are "by themselves."

Yes, if you assume that PA is consistent, and then immediately follow that by assuming (in addition) that PA is not consistent, then yes you've assumed a logical contradiction.

The brackets here are extraneous. This is like 1 + (1).

---------------------

This is a logical contradiction.

-----------------

The assumption (A) is now a hypothetical. And assuming it "by itself" is not a contradiction.

Are you sure? How do you know?

If that were really the "misunderstanding" you should have figured that out days ago when I pointed out the difference between PA+ not Con(PA) which leads to a contradiction iff PA leads to a contradiction and PA+ not Con(PA) + Con(PA) which always leads to a contradiction.

But early on you were "not entirely sure what [I was] saying when [I said] that L and PA are either both consistent or both inconsistent", where L was PA+not Con(PA). Glad you caught up on that. You did skip over the claim that there is a countable model for L. That honestly might take months to go over at this pace, so hopefully you just take my word for it.

How about:

Reality can't come from nothing. Reality always was.

1. There is a creation.

2. A CREATION requires a CREATOR. That is to say, a creation can't have always existed; if it had always existed, then it was never created. In other words, something that was created had to come into being at some point in time.

--------------------

One way to prove that a painter exists is to find a painting. One need not have to know specifically who the painter was to know that there was a painter.

I would slightly modify this to "Not all reality can come from nothing. Some reality always was."

A part of reality can come from nothing?

Also, I'm taken aback that a person who supposedly taught philosophy, or logic, or reasoning (I forget how you described this) would offer the "a painting requires a painter" apologetic, a la Ray Comfort. How would Lagtight the teacher respond to Comfort's words?

1. I should have written "Not all reality can come from something."

2. To put it another way, it is not the case that everything in the universe could have been created.

3. At least one thing always was. For something to come into being by way of being created, something prior to that thing had to exist to create it.

4. I see only two ways out of an infinite regress:

a. Nothing was ever created; that is, everything always existed.

b. At least one thing always existed, and that thing created other things.

I taught several different philosophy courses many years ago, including Introduction to Logic.

The statement "Every painting had a painter' would be remarkably easy to refute: produce a painting that was not painted by someone (or something).

Similiarly, the claim "Every created thing has a creator" could be easily refuted by producing a created thing that wasn't created by something.

In your opinion.

Comfort holds aloft a potato and declares "this painting proves there is a painter".

Next Comfort thrusts a rubber chicken towards the sky and utters "this painting proves there is a painter".

Then Comfort waves a dildo in the air and yells "this painting proves there is a painter".

"Wait a minute Ray" you say. "Those aren't paintings!"

"Of course they are!" declares Ray. Anticipating your question, he continues "I know they are paintings because they were painted by the holiest Painter most high!" (perhaps Ray meant to say this most high painter, because they're sniffing paint cans?!).


You get the idea. It's not about finding an unpainted painting. It's that everything is a painting, or rather, everything is a creation for Ray, because this apologetic for God begins with everything is a creation that God created. "Every creation needs a creator" is mundane as a general statement, but circular as an apologetic.

As entertaining as your rant against Mr. Comfort may be, it might be more on point for you to address what I actually wrote, instead of something that Mr. Comfort said.

How about you follow the rules of basic logic (which you are clearly incapable of understanding) and support the claim you are making. You know, instead of begging others to prove you wrong, like an imbecile 10 year old.

Could you please provide an example or two of "basic rules of logic" that I am not following?

Point of information: Failing to support a claim does NOT violate a "rule of logic." (I say that since there is no basis that would have me believe that you already knew that).

I'm a simple man, with simple thoughts.

My dilemma is that you seem to be saying that things exist because they were created, but there is a Creator that was never created.

That's a problem.

How do you know what is was that originally existed without being created?

There's also a thing called evolution, in which things change into other things.

You seemed to have engaged my question earlier ("How would Lagtight the teacher respond to Comfort's words?"), so I continued by telling you how I'd respond.

But ok, fair enough. Here's what was said:

You have asserted that everything, except for God, is God's creation.

When asked for your justification, you then asserted that creation (which would be everything that isn't God) requires a creator.

If every creation requires a creator is just a general comment, then it is true by definition, and also mundane. If it is a justification for the existence of God, which is what you had been asked, then it is arguing in a circle.

This is exactly what Comfort does, which is why I asked you what you thought of his argument. And because you made essentially the same argument, I'm giving you essentially the same response.

Do you think you've made a different argument to Comfort?

My claim is that at least one thing in the universe was not created.

Otherwise, an infinite regress occurs.



One can't necessarily know what the uncreated thing is.

I agree that things evolve. Not sure about the "changing into other things" part.

I never said that. I never even used the word GOD in this "creator/creation" conversation

I did use the term "Himself' once, but I could have used "itself."

I never excluded the possibility of a multitude of uncreated things.

Ok. How do you decide, or think you know, what that "one thing" is?