First order logic, set theory and God

[I_am_not_mafia]

No engineer builds a bridge for example using the 'law' of Causation.

All engineers use the law of causation when they build a bridge.

They know that if a lot of cars are on the bridge, it will cause the load on the bridge to increase. Without the law of causation, they could imagine that lots of cars on the bridge would not cause the weight to increase. They assume that the continued properties of the steel and concrete will cause the bridge to behave in certain ways. (These assumptions, not ideas about origins, are what the first cause arguments refer to.) 

Engineers take it so much for granted that they don't have to name it, but they know it applies.

That argument really is a case of if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. Philosophers generally only know how to talk about the world with the highest level of abstraction.

No engineering school would teach the law of causation. And if they did then they wouldn't turn out good engineers. Engineers need to work at a far more refined level than that. They wouldn't be considering stuff like if there are too many cars then the bridge collapses. They'd be working out how much stress a bridge can cope with under different environmental conditions. And from that they'd then be able to work out exactly how many vehicles it would take to cause it to collapse and the probability of it ever reaching that level.

And this is exactly what I am trying to express. It's all a framework to reason about reality and talking about first order logic and the law of causation is too high a level of abstraction to be meaningful or useful, especially when talking about and making predictions of the nature of reality.

First order logic is a language. A framework. It is not a part of reality itself. It doesn't matter if a logical proof is internally consistent if it does not properly map to the real world.

You use it for stuff like heavily constrained computer programs. Most of us have even given up using it for artificial intelligence because it does not adequately describe the real world which is noisy and continuous.