First order logic, set theory and God

[I_am_not_mafia]

No, first-order logic isn't merely a language that one could lump together with interpretive dance or an impressionist painting. The comparison is completely absurd as dancing or painting fails to deal with semantic truths and syntactic provability, both of which deals with provability within a clearly defined postulated system of axioms.

My point is though that first order logic is still nothing more than a way of describing reality.


The examples you've mentioned are in no way regarded as proof systems to which one can derive true/false propositions precisely because there is absolutely no deductive apparatus that could convey a true disclosure of an external reality.

Speaking of True and False, well those are semantic values (and not assumptions as you've mentioned) chosen to constitute a simple system that allows for abstract reasoning. The existence of those values can be explained by the rule of identity, such that we know that True is True and True is not False(and vice versa). That's it.

Exactly. True and False are abstractions. They do not exist in nature.

As for the causational dynamics of two different phenomenon being either discrete, continuous or whatnot, that's a moot point.

Rubbish. It's extremely important.

What causes a hammer to exist for example? When someone connects a handle to a head? When a wood is reshaped to create the handle? When metal is melted down and shaped into a head? When a tree is cut down? When ore is mined from the Earth? When a tree is grown? When a planet is formed? What is the single cause of a hammer? There isn't one. All we have is energy flowing through and reshaping matter in accordance of the laws of Thermodynamics. Your abstraction of True, False and causation miss all that because they are abstractions.

Natural scientists see the laws of Thermodynamics work throughout the entirety of reality and make use of them in practice. The same cannot be said about the 'law' of Causation. This is a philosophical principle which has little practical use. No engineer builds a bridge for example using the 'law' of Causation. Nor does it have much explanatory power because it says nothing about why the cause happens.