First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

Since the first cause need not be a god, the proof is an example of ignoratio elenchi, at minimum.  It is not a proof of the existence of God.

There are other problems, but that is sufficient.  This is simply the basic first cause argument fleshed out with formalism.  Hardly worth even bringing up.

The point sailed over your head it seems. You'd have to provide some compelling and convincing arguments to support your position, instead of pointing out the fallacy that I'm allegedly guilty of.

No, I wouldn't have. The existence of a fallacy indicates that your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. That's how logic works, dumbass. I could have pointed out other errors, but there was no need to do so having established the one. A point that apparently sailed over your head.

Are you really this stupid?