First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

My point is that first order logic doesn't describe reality very well.

There is an awful lot of fundamentally important stuff that it cannot describe at all. Making your so called proof worthless if you are trying to say something about the nature of reality. For example thermodynamics, complexity and chaos.

It is not grounded in reality any more than the English language.

Which completely misses the point I am making in that reality is continuous whereas your arguments of causality are discrete.

As I said, your description of reality is not sufficiently powerful enough to say anything worthwhile at all.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here.


First, on what basis is first-order logic inefficient at describing reality ? What are the "fundamentally important stuff" that it cannot describe, from an ontological perspective? How do you define the nature of reality? More importantly, what makes you think that the structure of reality and logical abstractions aren't intricately related ? Is reality merely encompassed through empiricism and sensational perception or is it derived through primary rational notions such as 'cause','effect', 'substance', 'necessity', 'existence', ect.. or is it both? I could go on and on Mathilda. A wise lady once said - "Assumptions are quick exits for lazy minds."

In all honesty, the impression one gets by reading your posts is akin to a douche on a futile endeavor of throwing around "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that, and not even understanding what they're talking about. Perhaps you should understand that you don't get the decisive edge in an argument by simply brandishing retardedly your "Fallacy" wand at every chance you get and cramming your goddamn post with an impressive-sounding Latin term. Ironically enough, you're just as guilty of committing the fallacy of supposing you can defeat an argument simply by appealing to a named fallacy. You fucking dunce.

So, in other words, you really are this stupid.  In the first place, I didn't just throw out the term fallacy, I gave the reason why it was fallacious, namely that it doesn't prove God exists, but rather that something that isn't necessarily God exists.  The use of the Latin phrase is merely a shorthand for intelligent people to convey exactly what kind of error is involved and so convey why it is an error.  Since you apparently aren't intelligent, it does not convey much to you.  Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is.  I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument.  Good luck with that, loser.

God damn it, there goes another full bucket of puerile verbal diarrhoea, you seem to get the thrill out of it... but sadly, time is of the essence and I just can't be arsed to thwart each and every one of your piss-poor scattershot ad hominem attacks.

However, I must admit that GIF caught my attention and quite honestly - I'd love for you to name me your price.