quip

But of course, yes Lycius, presuppose what you will! All presuppositions now come standard-equipped with the appropriate, supplementary conclusion!

Stephen T-B

Draycomb'e paradox is surely broken only if a supernatural creative energy exists in a supernatural environment.
Since neither can be proved to exist, any more than can the Easter Bunny, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Jabberwock, the Jub-Jub Bird and the invisible giant white rabbit in my garage, the prardox stands.

A supernatural entity (for argument's sake, "God") cannot, for reasons of being supernatural, occupy physical space. If it did, it would be detectable, or its existence could be deduced mathematically - and in that case, it would not be supernatural but part of the natural order, and part of the universe, and unable, for that reason, to have created the universe.

Conclusion 1: it is not part of the natural order or the universe.
Conclusion 2: it exists in a supernatural environment which is totally independent of the physical; universe.

What, then, could such an "environment" be?

Well, it's got to be "something" rather than "nothing" because in "nothing" there is "nothing."
Furthermore, nothing that's physical can border "nothingness" because since "nothing" can exist in "nothingness", the border would be swallowed up by the "nothingness."

Therefore, this "God-environment" (for the sake of argument, "heaven") is a "something."
It is a "somewhere."

But not, unfortunately (and for the reason that it is "supernatural") any place we know where to look for it.

At least, not with certainty or consistency. There are people - indeed, many millions of people - who think they know where to look for it, and think they have found it, but have they?

Generally speaking, we know of a thing's existence because those who experience it, speak of a common experience. For instance, even if I were blind, I would know if there were a red post in the middle of my work place; I'd know it was there by bumping into it (and meeting people who told me it was there), and I'd know it was red because those who can see it would agree with one another that it's red, and would tell me it was.

Heaven, however, lacks this quality. As does God.

People hold different ideas as to the nature of both. And because their concepts are shaped by vaguely-worded religious texts which have been subject to many translations and thousands of interpretations, there is nothing concrete for them to form a concensus about.

In fact, we have a situation where, even if God and Heaven were real, they might as well not be.
There is no discernable difference between God that's "real" and a god that's made up; a god and a heaven which are figments of the human imagination.

If those who believe in the reality of either can demonstrate that there is a difference, then they will be getting somewhere.

Draycomb's paradox will be broken.

But they haven't yet, and their failure indicates strongly to me that they haven't because they can't. And they can't because "God" and "Heaven" are, as I suspect, fictional.