First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I presented my objections to each part and gave examples that show each part is flawed.

In the car scenario, he uses the car as an example purposely. A car is designed with certain finite precise parts that do not change over time. A car is not grown. It doesn't form from a set of natural conditions.

It is not natural.

Nature and reality behave in ways that are not so neat and clean. Everything in nature is constantly changing and yet we still label things as the same thing even when they've changed.

The sun, our Galaxy, the universe is constantly changing. Heavy metals form within stars, but it doesn't happen immediately. A star is born through gravity and matter. Conditions over time produce new heavy elements and at the same time, helium is used up and eventually you have a star with no more fuel.

The energy of the universe is dynamic and always changing. If something is always changing and it exists now then it has always existed and causation is meaningless when referring to something that has always existed.

You first argument supported his argument.  The other two were iffy, so they would probably first need to be clarified.  Actually your sun argument here would also be beneficial to his overall position.  It's not ruling out change, but rather asserting causation. Once something is caused, it is still a product of whatever caused it.  Therefore anything that came as a result of the initial cause would be a subject of the original cause.

So if the sun was caused, then anything the sun caused to happen would be subject to whatever caused the sun.

A (Whatever force) leads to B (Sun) which leads to C (Plants growing).  The sun can't make those plants grow unless the sun was first caused.  If the plants start to grow, then the sun is taken out of the equation, those plants are still a product of A and B.  And so on and so on.  If the plants caused by A+B at any point cause something else, then the that becomes a subject of A+B+C. Like a big chain reaction.

I think this is why he mentions the "straw that broke the camel's back"  The collective effort of the first 999 straws led the the contribution of the 1000th straw to seal the deal.  On it's own, the 1000th straw was only 1/1000 of the potential needed to get the job done (assuming all straws are equal).