First order logic, set theory and God

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Why would I be reducing the very nature of reality to your god's existence when I know that your god does not exist?

You are the one arguing for a first cause with that first cause being your imaginary, undefinable being. That defines reality. You are the one saying that magic is involved. You don't call it magic of course but that's exactly what it must be. Some form of power that is undefinable and unexplainable and impossible. Ergo magic.

There is no god. Your logic means nothing. Garbage in garbage out.

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.

Hatcher's so-called proof is meaningless twaddle.

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. 

Do you know what extrapolating means? Because it doesn't mean what you seem to be saying it means. I was not extrapolating your so called proof. I am saying that your argument from logic is inadequate because there is so much that is relevant that it is missing out on.

You ridiculed me for saying that you are not scientifically literate. Yet if you were, you'd know that any scientific hypothesis must attempt to fit into what we already know. We know that the laws of thermodynamics exist and is the basis for the complexity we see in the universe, yet you completely ignore them, instead focusing on discrete logic to argue the existence of something that you cannot even define.

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.

So in other words you have no idea what it is. Like the concept of a god, the way you use the concept of causality is equally nebulous and badly defined.