First order logic, set theory and God

[I_am_not_mafia]

The problem is that first order logic is a language. It is not a feature of reality but one method among many of describing reality. This means that it is not a perfect match for reality and any inferences based on this assumption will be wrong.

You could for example put forward an argument for the existence of your god using interpretive dance or an impressionist painting. Both would describe different aspects in more or less effective ways. But like with logic, it's just another language that is being used. For example first order logic rather than fuzzy logic.

For example your argument starts with flawed assumptions that have no equivalence in reality, namely that True and False exists and that causation is atomic. This is wrong and consequently so is the rest of your argument. Reality is not discrete, it is continuous and stochastic. saying that A causes B is short hand for saying that matter is gradually rearranged from one state to another over time because of energy flowing through it in accordance with the laws of Thermodynamics. This is a fundamental aspect of reality that is completely ignored because of the language you chose to use.