First order logic, set theory and God

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

No. It's called being scientifically literate.

First, on what basis is first-order logic inefficient at describing reality ?

I did not use the word inefficient, although it is that as well. I used the inadequate. I have already explained several times. It reasons about reality as if it is made up of discrete objects when in fact these are arbitrary definitions. It does not take into account continuous and continual processes, chaos, complexity or thermodynamics which are fundamentally important to describing the nature of reality and why the world is as it currently is.

Take a snow flake for example. How would your logic be used to describe what causes a snow flake. Go on, try it. Now use your first order logic to explain why a snow flake has the shape that it does. First order logic is inadequate for doing so, but the same laws governing why and how a snowflake exist are behind why galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, evolution and even intelligence and consequently society. And if you tried reasoning about them using first order logic you would not come up with much that was any use.

---

The phrase "began to exist"

I used this analogy in another thread but I like ice, so I'll use it again.

A cup of water is left outside over night and on this particular night, it got cold enough to create a little ice in the cup of water.
First question ....When did the ice "begin to exist" ?
Was ice "created" ? When creationists say the universe was created, would they also say that the ice was "created" ?

A baseball bat can be whittled down from a tree branch.
The branch existed the entire time, so when did the branch stop existing and the baseball bat began to exist ?

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Right. So the moment two H2O molecules formed a crystal inside a cup of water, was it a cup of ice or a cup of water?

How does your first order logic describe a cup that is in the process of transitioning from a cup of water to a cup of ice?

Causality isn't continuous but rather discrete

Possibly at the Quantum level if you are referring to events at the Planck length, but that's not the kind of stuff you use first order logic for.

So no. When you refer to causality you are referring to a continuous process.