RE: First order logic, set theory and God
December 5, 2018 at 8:36 am
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2018 at 8:40 am by polymath257.)
Once again, what allows you to construct the system V in this 'proof'? What set theory are you using?
The problem is that sets of the type of V are *known* to not be constrictible in most standard set theories: they lead to inconsistencies like Russell's paradox or Cantor's paradox. They are 'too big' to be sets.
So, unless you give *first order* axioms allowing for the construction of your system V, you have no proof.
Good luck.
Next, your axiom of sufficiency is way, way too strong. In all likelihood, the *most* that we can say is that all *finite* phenomena have causes (whether themselves or another). But, if this is the case, then there is no guarantee your system V (even if you can construct it) will have a cause since it is likely that V is an infinite system.
Also, remember that constructing infinite systems is not a first order process in general.
The problem is that sets of the type of V are *known* to not be constrictible in most standard set theories: they lead to inconsistencies like Russell's paradox or Cantor's paradox. They are 'too big' to be sets.
So, unless you give *first order* axioms allowing for the construction of your system V, you have no proof.
Good luck.
Next, your axiom of sufficiency is way, way too strong. In all likelihood, the *most* that we can say is that all *finite* phenomena have causes (whether themselves or another). But, if this is the case, then there is no guarantee your system V (even if you can construct it) will have a cause since it is likely that V is an infinite system.
Also, remember that constructing infinite systems is not a first order process in general.
