First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

Really? I took into consideration all three of the OP principles and still concluded that it is still possible for the sustaining cause to be naturalistic. Is logical Existence (not to be confused with universe/cosmos) not enough to be a sustaining cause? Must there be anything beyond the "state of affairs" itself for everything else to exist?

Maybe I'm being naive about something in my argument, or maybe no one is getting my point, but I didn't get any solid objection to my point from the OP or you for that matter. What you did earlier amounted to "Yeah, I don't know man, but there's this specific theist philosopher/theologian who elegantly argues something relevant here, and I don't know if I understand it correctly, but it seems compelling". That's basically the response I got from you.

Edit to add: I'm not convinced that the principle of limitation must unconditionally hold. Please convince me otherwise.

I'm willing to review the whole thing if you're up for it.  Here is the first statement in the OP:

P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.

So to take it step by step, is this reasonable?

Not all terms have been sufficiently defined.

For example, what is a phenomenon? How are they recognized? In your first order system, how are they constructed? What axioms allow the existence and description of phenomena?

As I pointed out before, it may be that a more likely axiom would be that every *finite* phenomenon has a cause. But even that needs some clarification.

Do we really have any reason to think that infinite phenomena have causes? All phenomena we have observed are finite, so that suggests that we only know about finite phenomena.

So, no, as stated I do NOT accept this.