First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

So ... now that I've fully read the OP, I went through the first two to three pages of this thread, and it turns out that first Jorm and then Khem/Gae already pointed out the one problem that stands out with the argument: that the first cause need not be a supernatural God, even if the OP decides to call it "God" anyway.

So Belaqua, you were being unfair in saying that no one effectively addressed the argument earlier.

Really, that was all that was needed to be pointed out. I admit on the basis of my full reading of the OP, my initial counterargument was overkill.

Early on, dron3 made it clear that the argument only addresses a first cause. To show that this cause is anything like a Muslim or Christian God demands lots of other arguments. 

I pointed that out too, as I recall. 

I missed that part. Could you quote it for me? And as Gae notes, that seems to be at odds with both the title of the thread and his objection to my pointing out that his argument didn't prove God. If that wasn't his intent, then what was all that pissing and moaning about my counter-argument intended to accomplish?

And I just skimmed the OP again, and God is explicitly mentioned multiple times.. Where exactly are you getting this notion that he doesn't intend this as a proof of God from exactly?