First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I explained. If you didn't understand, that may be an indication that you should take some time to study logic, including commonly committed fallacies.  Sometimes it's hard not to make a fallacy, so it's good to know them.  Admittedly I make them on occasion, but try to go back and fix them when I do.  Good stuff.

No you didn't. Your BS is irrelevant.

".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 should
n'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."

I demonstrated why his variable DO NOT APPLY AT ALL to the conditions. He knows NOTHING ABOUT ANY conditions outside the universe. You bluster well, old man with this fallacy BS, but in fact you refuted nothing.
In fact it's a lack of understanding of Logic of BOTH of you that reeks here. 

Your patronizing shit is dismissed for what it is, pops.

You're making claims that you can't demonstrate and objections that have the same issues you're saying he has.  Even if you had valid questions, no one can automatically assume your objection invalidates his argument(s).  I've read through his claims before and some areas were a bit lacking with detail, but you couldn't discount them on that basis alone.  But that's okay because that is what peer review is for.  That's why even before you do research, you go through variables and control.  If still it is lacking, you conduct the research with better parameters.  At best you can say the research/arguments weren't optimal, but you can also go back and use it to optimize.

---

The OP admits that this only proves a first cause of some sort. It doesn't prove a supernatural God. He just chooses to call that first cause "God" even though it could perfectly be naturalistic, nothing more.

That said, it's a strange argument to allow the first cause to be a component of the thing it eventually causes. And this is still relying on naive and outdated notions of time and causality. The OP fails to consider the implications of modern cosmology regarding these notions and others.

I think it's a fair assumption even if you can't specifically define the trigger.  No matter what you say it is, you have to assume it was sufficient of itself or prove at least two simultaneous anomalies.  Because if 1 can't be sufficient of itself, you need a minimum of 2 to generate it, which would make those two things the trigger.  This is conjecture here, but that would be a stretch since they would need to be random anomalies.  If you rule both those things out, then you pretty much have to default to something supernatural, because ..well, what else could it be?