First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

dr0n3 - I asked if you were high because I explained the freezing of ice analogy as if I was talking to my 7 year old grandchild.

He would have understood it because I explained it in the most simplistic terms I know of.

And yet you didn't understand it.

That made me think that you must be high.
I didn't want to assume you're high.
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue.
I don't know, so I asked.

But you didn't answer.
Did you understand the question ?

Don't confuse your inability to explain a notion with my misunderstanding. Your whole analogy was grounded on a faulty reasoning, part of which is due to the misuse of your "simplistic terms" and that tendency to make unwarranted assumptions about the nature of causality. The truth of the matter is that we're not on the same level of comprehension.

Thankfully, this isn't meant to be an ELI5 type of thread.

I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything.

Below is a copy-paste of my own thread that was posted in another forum. I'm reposting it here in hopes to spark an intelligent discourse on what I believe to be the most refined proof of God's existence.

Simple fact. You are trying to logic your god into existence as the first cause. You are trying to describe the very nature of reality using logic as a language. All I am doing is pointing out how logic is inadequate to describe the very nature of reality.

That's the issue with you Mathilda, that attempt of reducing the very nature of reality to God's existence is baseless and uncalled for. God's existence is merely a component of reality, yet your whole reasoning was an attempt at positioning God's existence as the sole basis of what reality essentially is. Hatcher's proof was solely established as to provide a minimalist notion of God's existence, and I stress on the word "minimalist". That's it. You, on the other hand, went off into multiple tangents by extrapolating the proof to other areas (thermodynamics, continuum/discreteness and whatnot) that were completely divorced from the matter at hand. 

So what exactly is this causality? What exactly is established the moment the very last molecule of H2O freezes? It is physical? Does it actually exist? Or is it just something you say has been established in hindsight?

Causality, for the most part, is best defined in terms of dependence. That is, "the formation of ice is causally dependent upon the onset of water crystallization" is to say that "if the onset of water crystallization had not occurred, then the formation of ice would not have occurred." The effect is always dependent on the cause. From an empirical standpoint, what is established the moment the very last molecule of H2O freezes, is the end of crystallization, ergo, the end of the effect of the causal chain. The whole point was that the transition from water to ice is discrete in nature since one can perceptually distinguish between the qualitative properties of water and that of ice, such that one doesn't overlap the other. It's that specific point in time, at which water ceases to be water and gradually takes in ice-like properties. Time is continuous but causality is discrete, and since both are intimately related to each other in the observable world, then one is bound to not make the difference between them. Such is your case, I'm afraid.