First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Ok here we go.

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.

I reject P1.

Given that both A & B exist, neither need to be caused to exist. There is no causation of existence when things already exist.
We can demonstrate a causation of change. A changes to B under certain conditions. The environmental conditions alter A into B

P2. The potency principle: If A -> B then for all C element of B, A -> C. In other words if A is the cause of B then A is the cause of every part of B.

I reject P2

Planets form from gravity acting on upon a dust cloud and over time, a planet forms. Gravity (A) is the cause of Planet (B), but gravity is not the cause of every part of B.
Gravity is not the cause for life. It doesn't cause a tree to grow. It doesn't cause a magnetic field. It doesn't cause every attribute of a planet.

P3. The principle of limitation: For all A, where A is an element of B, B -> A does not hold. This says a system (which Hatcher represents as a set) cannot be the cause of its own components. Hatcher justifies this by explaining any system has (1) form (the parts) and (2) function (the relationship between the parts). A car (the system) cannot be the cause of its own steering wheel (a part), because the car does not even logically exist until the steering wheel exists

I reject P3

There was a time when I was but a wee child with no teeth. Teeth are elements of human beings. I was a human being with no teeth and yet as I grew older, my body caused an element of my body (my teeth) to grow. A car is still a car without a steering wheel. It can be started. It can be moved by pushing on the gas peddle. It will most likely go straight for a while. You can remove a car seat from the car and it's still a car.

Setting a limitation on something until it fulfills every single aspect of some arbitrary set of conditions is just stupid.
Is a blind man no longer a human being because he doesn't have two functioning eyes ?
According to P3, he's not. In fact he doesn't even logically exist until he has every functioning part that makes up a human being.

The rest of the monkey scratching from Hatcher's proof of the existence of a god, I'm not going to touch.

Instead I'll focus on why I think Drone is an idiot.

Quotes from Drone
"For every complex problem there is a simple solution." - Oh really ? Lupus is fairly complex. Got a simple solution ?

"You don't get the decisive edge in an argument by simply brandishing retardedly your "Fallacy" wand at every chance you get" - The existence of a fallacy indicates that your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, you fucking idiot.

"First, on what basis is first-order logic inefficient at describing reality ?"  - (Mathilda) There is an awful lot of fundamentally important stuff that it cannot describe at all. For example thermodynamics, complexity and chaos.

"The event of a " baseball bat being whittled down from a tree branch" is something concrete that occurs at a particular spatiotemporal location. Perceptually speaking, The tree branch (cause) and the bat (effect) "      

- (Me) The tree branch is not the cause. The whittling of the branch alters the form of the branch. As the blade shaves a piece of wood from the branch, it causes a little bit of wood to be removed from the branch. The bat is the end result of all of those effects of removing wood.

I could keep going but I think I've made my point.
Keep droning on drone.

Interesting.

It seems like you are using an argument in P1 that would support his notion to attempt to argue against it.  If A is sufficient of itself, then it could conceivably be the cause of B, or vice versa.  I don't think preexistence is assumed of either, but if A can trigger itself, it could conceivably trigger B subsequently.  (If the OP means something else, then maybe the person asserted this could shed some light with a little more detail.

In P2, it lacks a full enough explanation. If he's suggesting something like a chain reaction, then I could see his point.  If not, then you might have him there.  Still needs clarification.

What I think he means is A could lead to B, but B couldn't lead to C without A happening first.  So the initial cause allowed for the initial effect to potentially become a cause for C.  The potency is that A started it.  Kind of like a domino effect.  Without that first domino, you won't logically reach the last domino unless you get other input.  Even if you added something external, that external energy couldn't have impacted said domino without domino A starting the reaction, even though the secondary energy source impacted the reaction.

In P3 it could go either way as well.  The car can't logically be 100 percent of a car without all the pieces.  There needs to be a design and input of energy to reach that point.  Kind of an iffy argument.  I think it works forward but not backwards.  Once you complete the car, removing any piece or function of that car will not stop it from being a car, but rather just a broken car.