First order logic, set theory and God

[Paleophyte]

(1) Arguments aren't evidence. Can you imagine a murder trial where the prosecution failed to demonstrate that anybody had been killed?

Some things are proved through logic, and some things are proved through evidence. 

Arguments may prove that something may exist. Evidence shows that it does.

Although in fact, simple logic will be used throughout a murder trial. 

~ A man can not be in two places at the same time.
~ The suspect was in Chicago and the murder was in New York.
~ Therefore, the suspect is innocent. 

It's so simple it may not even look like logic, but without logic we wouldn't have the correct conclusion. 

Thank you for the fine example. In step 2 you use the evidence that the suspect was in Chicago. Remove that evidence and the argument is worthless.

(2) I'll entertain an argument from First Cause as soon as somebody can show me how a cause can exist without space-time. 

The First Cause argument is intended to address whether space-time can exist without a cause. People who are persuaded by the argument think that space-time requires a cause. 

How can space-time have a cause when space and time are necessary for causality?

All I've been saying on this thread is that the Aristotelian/Thomist argument addresses an essential sequence, not a temporal one.

So you're going by logical priority rather than temporal sequences. That still gets you back to space-time. Without that you don't have existence. You likely don't even have the very logic that you are trying to apply. Space-time is logically necessary for everything else.

The Argument(s) from First Cause are lovely examples of why you can't apply "common sense" to the least common event in the history of history and expect the answers to make sense.