First order logic, set theory and God

[The Grand Nudger]

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."

Actually, I think you just read god in.  Neo's comments are his own, and my comments to neo about his comments are..wait for it....about his comments, and yeah...in spie of your protestations to the contrary...you probably would have to read them to understand that, numbskull.

Words, how do they work, and what is word, anyway?    

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 ?

I guess that makes your thread title a misnomer, and your comments -in- thread inexplicable, then.  That would be a you problem.  : shrugs :

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 ? 

Awesome, then we've established that we both have an imagination.  In point of fact it was your imagination that lead you to read djinn in to some argument about a first cause.