First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

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

right che-ya

I don't need to read Neo's post to understand that the bit " which exactly what the op did, too" was directed towards me and thus insinuating that I was supposedly "raising the possibility of a god of any kind."

@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

I don't think it has anything to do with djinn. I mean, do you think it has something to do with Hatcher's proof ?

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.

That's lovely - but do you know what mental picture I conceived when I read your post ? A stereotypical version of a hobo-like pedophile-looking Conor Mcgregor (looking at your profile pic) intensely breathing  as he was frantically delivering repeated heavy blows at the keyboard, while entertaining the delirious thought that cherry-picking a statement to prove a point was a good idea - only then to realize that he completely overlooked the preceding part laying out the 3 empirically-grounded principles that, to his bewilderment, happens to substantiate why the reader should already "accept and understand the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)". 

Not so ironic, considering the above - don't you think ? Or am I reading this way too far ? 

Perhaps if you took a minute to read the proof, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass.

The only thing coming out of an ass is the stupid proof. Nowhere in it is there a definition of what this thing *is* .... not it's attributes ... what *is* it? 
Yeah I read it. You're just one in the LONG LONG line of internet nuts who are so deluded they think they have come up with something everyone else missed. 
Sorry. The proof is bullshit, (as I detailed above and which you were incapable of responding to), AND you can't tell us what you're trying to prove.

You didn't read - or should I say, you refused to read.

Had you read it, you'd understand that God is defined as a unique, universal and uncaused being. You ought to divorce yourself from the preconceived notions of what God is, if you wish to appreciate the minimalist yet essential nature of God as defined within the scope of Hatcher's proof. Otherwise, you're bound to waste that tad bit of intellect you still have on mindlessly prattling ad nauseam on how I failed to define God.