Ah, it’s waffle time again.
First, I’ll note that you stated this:
and this :
which on its own does not bode well for your apologetics.
First of all, semantic inconsistencies can exist, and indeed, constitute an interesting problem for people constructing databases, among others. In short, a semantic inconsistency arises whenever definitions are constructed that, when applied to a given object, lead to contradictions.
An example arises, in the world of database construction, when, for example, a software company’s sales team defines “customer” as someone who has paid for one of the company’s products, while the support team defines “customer” as someone who receives support from them. This results in a semantic inconsistency, when applied to an entity that has been offered a free trial of one of the company’s products, with a fixed term of support, but has not yet paid for the product in question. From the standpoint of the sales team, this entity is not a customer, but from the standpoint of the support team, this entity is a customer. Attempting to merge the sales team’s database with the support team’s database, results in a semantically inconsistent database.
Of course, the solution is for the two teams to talk to each other, and construct definitions that don’t clash in this manner.
But this, of course, leads to an important distinction that needs to be made in the interests of rigour, namely, that is is perfectly possible to construct semantically inconsistent sentences or propositions, while it is impossible for an entity to exist which makes those sentences logically true. I can construct as many quantificational sentences of the form:
as I wish, where f(x) and g(x) are statements about an entity x that result in contradiction. What I cannot do is find any entity x that makes the requisite sentence true - it will be false for all possible relevant values of x.
Again, in the interests of rigour, it is perfectly possible to construct such sentences for pedagogical purposes, namely to inform students of some of the intricate traps that lie in wait for the naive or ill-prepared, and doing so for said purposes is perfectly rational. What is not rational, is asserting that an entity exists making those sentences true.
As for the rest of your waffle, others have already dealt therewith, and further attention from me is superfluous.