First order logic, set theory and God

[Minimalist]

Regarding your question, you and I can both concede that it's irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Not to me, pal.  Surely you don't think you are the first guy who trotted in here with a wall of text and said "abracadabra - "GOD!"

They all try it.  You are nothing new.

[dr0n3]

Hello. 

Wow, this is great! Please have god show up at my house, I'll be here most of the day tomorrow. Better yet, have him show up at the mall. Might as well have 100's verify that you're correct and that god actually exists in reality and not just as a philosophical argument.

I assume that you/god will have no problem with this, it is god after all.

What a silly comment, and God agrees with me too.

that god actually exists in reality and not just as a philosophical argument.

It seems you're implying we can only understand what we can physically perceive. I'm pretty sure that many of our current mathematical concepts cannot be experienced by the senses.

[GrandizerII]

I read the first half of the OP, and from what I can understand, it doesn't actually rule out every possible naturalistic account of reality. One example would be a reality in which the universe/cosmos has always existed, and every part of it has always existed. Think B-theory of time, or eternalism.

The why question can be answered by appealing to logical necessities. The universe exists as is because it cannot logically exist any other way. This would be more intuitive if you postulate something like modal realism.

[LostLocke]

Yeah.....
This is where "philosophy" talks a lot without saying anything. No attempt at simplification, just reuse pseudo-mathlike equations instead of just describing it using real world examples and events.

[Nay_Sayer]

Did you know Moohamad was a proud pedophile?

[Astreja]

dr0n3, a written philosophical "proof" is insufficient to convince me. You'll still need to produce an actual god (not its alleged output, but the god itself) to satisfy my evidentiary requirements.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Needs moar dragons.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The problem is that first order logic is a language. It is not a feature of reality but one method among many of describing reality. This means that it is not a perfect match for reality and any inferences based on this assumption will be wrong.

You could for example put forward an argument for the existence of your god using interpretive dance or an impressionist painting. Both would describe different aspects in more or less effective ways. But like with logic, it's just another language that is being used. For example first order logic rather than fuzzy logic.

For example your argument starts with flawed assumptions that have no equivalence in reality, namely that True and False exists and that causation is atomic. This is wrong and consequently so is the rest of your argument. Reality is not discrete, it is continuous and stochastic. saying that A causes B is short hand for saying that matter is gradually rearranged from one state to another over time because of energy flowing through it in accordance with the laws of Thermodynamics. This is a fundamental aspect of reality that is completely ignored because of the language you chose to use.

[Angrboda]

Since the first cause need not be a god, the proof is an example of ignoratio elenchi, at minimum. It is not a proof of the existence of God.

There are other problems, but that is sufficient. This is simply the basic first cause argument fleshed out with formalism. Hardly worth even bringing up.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Since the first cause need not be a god, the proof is an example of ignoratio elenchi, at minimum.  It is not a proof of the existence of God.

There are other problems, but that is sufficient.  This is simply the basic first cause argument fleshed out with formalism.  Hardly worth even bringing up.

^Exactly this. If you start with problematic axia, your conclusions end up being little more than wind-pissing.

Boru