First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

Could you type out a clear argument as to why you think he's an idiot? 

He starts out with a clear logical argument. I can say that the first half makes sense. The second half, where he starts using notation, is less clear to me -- but that's just me. 

Just now I re-read the whole thread. No one makes a coherent argument against what he's saying. At the beginning Reltzik makes a reasonable objection, and dr0n3 clarifies properly. Then Polymath replies intelligently, and dr0n3 explains some more. 

No one else deals with what dr0n3 has said. There is some off-topic stuff where people choose to address something other than the argument, and there's a lot of content-free insult. But there are no solid objections that have gone unanswered.

By repeating a lot of insults without any content it looks as if you're just trying to use force to make him shut up, since you certainly aren't adding to any rebuttal. But if you have reasons for your objection you could always spell them out.

Well, then, if you understand it, perhaps you could explain to me exactly how this is a proof of God? Hell, even Neo agrees with me, and he's one hundred percent sold on the first cause argument, through Aquinas. In as much as it proves God, it doesn't. In as much as it proves the necessity of a first cause, it doesn't do that either (via the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal). Even if it did say something about a first cause, it would be incredibly underwhelming as it is nothing more than a formalization of arguments that go back at least to Aquinas and probably further. And there's an additional problem that it isn't proving that a first cause is necessary in the same sense that God is necessary. So, that makes the proof even less interesting from a theological standpoint. You and I both know that this proof isn't aimed at showing the universe had a natural first cause, and insofar as it doesn't achieve its aims, it is a failure. As I noted originally, it is a case of ignoratio elenchi. You seem to think that it is not, or that it does accomplish one or more of its objectives. Apparently you see something that I do not, and I would appreciate you explaining it to me.

(Given that you seem to not even be arguing the actual proof presented, as demonstrated when I pointed out that it did in fact claim something that you believed it didn't claim, I suspect you may have something other than what was actually presented in mind and are pushing the virtues of that hidden argument instead. If that is the case, I hope that you will clarify.)