First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Total bullshit. There is nothing to "understand".
No one has demonstrated or even attempted to demonstrate or define why this logic applies , or should apply to the conditions of this question.

"First-order logic—also known as first-order predicate calculus and predicate logic—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as Socrates is a man one can have expressions in the form "there exists X such that X is Socrates and X is a man" and there exists is a quantifier while X is a variable.] This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations." - Wiki

1. The OP does not define what this "being" is, or what its nature might be. Saying this logic points to (proves) an "undefined being" which has the "property" "unique" is worthless and meaningless.

2. There are at least 25 logic systems, many of which, while perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality. There is not even an attempt in the OP to show why or how this logic might be applicable to unknown conditions (they would not be internal to this universe) ... which is all we know about. We know nothing about anything about what might be external to this universe, (and 95 % of this universe is unknown ... Dark Energy and Dark Matter) and we know nothing about whether any logic system we know about applies, or some other system applies.

3. Who or what created the reality in which this "unique being" found itself with (only) the specific properties claimed here, and NOT all the other possible properties it could have had, in a concurrent reality ?
Who created the properties this god has ... the reality that defines this god ? No clue here.
Did it give itself these "properties", or did it "find" itself with only these properties, and not other properties  ? Where did this reality come from ? A unique being answers nothing. If it's a "cause" of something, where did Causality come from ? Did it cause Causality when Causality did not exist ? Where and how did that happen ? None of the important questions are answered by this lame "proof".
A "being" assumes many things, which are incompatible, (does it have space-time to PROCESS thoughts ?)  with the environment assumed for it. Does this being *think* ?  LMAO

4. If this really is a "proof" of a god, then congratulations .... you're the only theist on the planet who needs no faith. If you have proof of something, you need no faith.

2,3,4 aren't very good arguments.


2.You can't control all variables in the universe simultaneously, and suggesting he need to form conclusions about them are self-defeating to your argument, because you must immediately disqualify your argument by not defining them and showing how they must be significant to his equation.  If he has to do it, why shouldn't you follow your own standard of accountability?  Even if you were correct, it doesn't invalid his entire position. It just means you need to add more variables to clarify it.
3. If A is sufficient or A (or whatever letter he used) then he doesn't need to provide the said explanation.  You're also not disqualifying his ascertain.  You're just asking more questions.  Even if you say "the Big Bang" did it instead, you would fall into the same conundrum.  So your choice would either be to invalidate it, validate it by showing something that caused it, or ask more questions to refine your variables.
4. I have proof I own two hounds. I have faith they can track a fox or a raccoon. If I didn't have faith in them, they wouldn't be very good hunting dogs.