First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

Meh.  I've grown quickly bored with this clown when all he knows how to do is insult and lie.  Not worth my time, but I may still occasionally indulge in poking the bear.

Agreed. He is not capable of understanding everyone else's counter-argument and so unless you are prepared to repeat yourself indefinitely it rather kills off the conversation.

@dr0n3. Can you demonstrate that you understand anyone else's counter-argument? I am not saying that you need to agree with what people are saying, I just want to see whether you have actually understood anything that anybody has said to you.

There is nothing for me to demonstrate at this point - most of your arguments, did however, demonstrate a thinly veiled attempt to shift the paradigm to make it appear as if Hatcher's proof was trying to establish the complexity of reality, when the contention was that of substantiating the origin of reality. God damn it, learn to read. The O-R-I-G-I-N. Not the complexity and the physical laws that governs reality. 

It's utterly laughable that you have gone at great length trying to establish that the laws of thermodynamics was more fitting at explaining reality than logic, when all of this was totally irrelevant. You've wasted your time arguing on notions that were completely extraneous to Hatcher's proof, and not worth considering in discussing.

Your motivation from the beginning was that of shifting the discourse in a way that best fit the conclusion your preferred. The flawed conclusion that because logic was inapt at describing reality, therefore God could not exist. Nice try but it doesn't work that way, sweetie.

Jörmungandr

I said that all you do is insult and lie, pointing out that you haven't addressed my substantial objection.  Even if I was saying that it is wrong to insult and lie, you would still be wrong in calling me a hypocrite because I didn't lie.  Nor was that all that I have done in this thread.  But since I wasn't saying it was wrong to insult, alone, or at all, but rather to do nothing more than insult and lie, the hypocrisy doesn't exist.  So, no, I'm not guilty of hypocrisy.  And the proof of that is in the very post you quoted in which I pointed out that I had not committed the fallacy I was accused of.  My doing so was neither an insult nor a lie.  You're simply wrong once again.

Of course you can prove me wrong by addressing my first post and the fallacy in your argument.  

Instead you'd rather falsely accuse me of fallacies I haven't committed, say that I must be a child, and accuse me of hypocrisy that I'm not guilty of.

You really do appear to be stupid.

Listen, no amount of twisting and turning will conceal your deceitfully duplicitous nature. The audience is here to bear witness of how you conveniently overlooked your own flaws while impudently pointing out my actions. I rest my case and will now leave it to you to mumble your incoherent rambling that only serves to heighten your hypocrisy.

Drone - what do you believe and why do you believe it ?

Couple simple questions.

Why do you ask ? So that you can misrepresent my answer and deceitfully repackage it through verbal slight of hand, as you did with your previous post ?

I don't see it raising the possibility of a god of any kind.  I think you're just reading that in...which is exactly what the op did, too.  

Raising the possibility of some first cause raises the possibility of a god in the same way that raising the possibility of a bat raises the possibility of a 747.

I don't see why you're presupposing that the proof is attempting to establish a god of any kind to begin with.