First order logic, set theory and God

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Maybe read Neo's post, that I was responding to, you know, the post directly preceding mine..huh?

right che-ya

As to whether or not the First Cause is God, I agree that on its own the demonstration does not tell us much about the nature of the First Cause. The best it does is raising the possibility of an impersonal God of the Philosophers, i.e. one that would satisfy Plotinus.

@Drone
You are, ofc...free to explain why you think it has anything to do with djinn, as well. Still pretty much what I had to say back on page...3....

right che-ya

Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)

Looks to me like a person can grant the bit in it's entirety and the only reason they call it a god..is that they call it a god.

Ironic that you use the term presupposing, though....considering all of the above, don't you think? You know what I see in my minds eye whenever I hear arguments like these? Nutbars driving through the universe pointing at shit going "look, look, that looks like god, maybe that's my god, right there! No, look, look, over there, that looks like my god too, there it is over there!" - and after a few manic hours of that, collapsing in the satisfaction of seeing their god in every direction they looked. I'm fairly certain that this will be an actual business, one day..just like holy relics are now, on earth. I'd put everything I owned down for the note to set my kids up in it. It's smart money.