First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It can be sufficient.  Or we can at least assume it can be.

That's sufficient for now. Until the OP can rule out naturalistic first causes, then the principle of parsimony suggests we don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain the existence of the universe.

And the first domino may need someone/something to tip it over and thus start a chain reaction, but that someone/something may also need someone/something else to move it to tip the first domino over. We don't have any good analogy to suggest that only a supernatural could be the first cause (or that there is a first cause for that matter), but a lot of good analogies to suggest an infinite regress of some sort.

Right. The difficultly though is that if the first domino can't tip itself, then it can't be the first cause, since whatever caused it to tip would take its place.  It doesn't rule out natural or supernatural though.  That's why I wouldn't go out of my way to say the assert it's "flawed", but rather just needing further explanation.  But for the most part, I agree with you here.

[Angrboda]

That's sufficient for now. Until the OP can rule out naturalistic first causes, then the principle of parsimony suggests we don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain the existence of the universe.

And the first domino may need someone/something to tip it over and thus start a chain reaction, but that someone/something may also need someone/something else to move it to tip the first domino over. We don't have any good analogy to suggest that only a supernatural could be the first cause (or that there is a first cause for that matter), but a lot of good analogies to suggest an infinite regress of some sort.

Right. The difficultly though is that if the first domino can't tip itself, then it can't be the first cause, since whatever caused it to tip would take its place.  It doesn't rule out natural or supernatural though.  That's why I wouldn't go out of my way to say the assert it's "flawed", but rather just needing further explanation.  But for the most part, I agree with you here.

It's more a paradox that doesn't point reliably to any conclusion, than one that points to the specific conclusions which theists are wont to draw from it. I suspect we simply don't have the intellectual resources to pose the question meaningfully. It could also be that it is a problem, which, once solved, will in hindsight appear to have been simple and unproblematic, but which posed no end of consternation and mystery while the question was live, as Darwin's theory of evolution did for the diversity of life.

[GrandizerII]

That's sufficient for now. Until the OP can rule out naturalistic first causes, then the principle of parsimony suggests we don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain the existence of the universe.

And the first domino may need someone/something to tip it over and thus start a chain reaction, but that someone/something may also need someone/something else to move it to tip the first domino over. We don't have any good analogy to suggest that only a supernatural could be the first cause (or that there is a first cause for that matter), but a lot of good analogies to suggest an infinite regress of some sort.

Right. The difficultly though is that if the first domino can't tip itself, then it can't be the first cause, since whatever caused it to tip would take its place.  It doesn't rule out natural or supernatural though.  That's why I wouldn't go out of my way to say the assert it's "flawed", but rather just needing further explanation.  But for the most part, I agree with you here.

To be fair, this is the best a theist could argue for God (as first cause) without special pleading or anything of the sort. If the OP (who clearly is a smart guy) could do better, he would've done it.

[Bucky Ball]

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.

---

Bla bla bla bla bla
LMAO. I knew you were incapable of specifically addressing anything. You're nothing but a total fraud with bs pouring from your ass.
Since apparently you think it's good enough, (and it's all the time you're worth), I'll just reply to your bullshit in your own words :

"Those are weak arguments". 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Right. The difficultly though is that if the first domino can't tip itself, then it can't be the first cause, since whatever caused it to tip would take its place.  It doesn't rule out natural or supernatural though.  That's why I wouldn't go out of my way to say the assert it's "flawed", but rather just needing further explanation.  But for the most part, I agree with you here.

To be fair, this is the best a theist could argue for God (as first cause) without special pleading or anything of the sort. If the OP (who  clearly is a smart guy) could do better, he would've done it.

Maybe at the time, but that is why we do things like peer review.  It's easy to make mistakes.  As a writer and a publisher, I run into the same problem.  I write something and I can go back to edit my draft, but miss the same mistake 10 times because I know in my mind what something is supposed to say, but the tendency is for the mind to imply it.  If someone else reads it, they don't start out with knowing already what it's supposed to say, so that error will likely stick out like a sore thumb.  So even though I'm capable of editing drafts for someone else, I still need someone to edit my drafts.  The best version probably isn't my version, but rather the one that is fine tuned with secondary critique.

I think the same thing applies to complex explanations.  As they grow in complexity, so does the chance for error or even the addition of new variables.

Regardless of whether the conclusion is full proof, I still appreciate when a person, no matter what their religion, ideology, or worldview may be takes the time to understand the world around us and share that with others. I think it takes a bit of courage to put an idea out there knowing there are people who are going to look to shoot it down.

[Angrboda]

I think it takes a bit of courage to put an idea out there knowing there are people who are going to look to shoot it down.

And then there are cowards like you who run away from a fair fight. You spend more time going meta to avoid answering questions than you do actually answering them.

Just sayin'.

[Amarok]

He seems to think writing a small rambling novel makes him sound smart

[T0 Th3 M4X]

He seems to think writing a small rambling novel makes him sound smart

Da what?  What small novel? Title and date would be sufficient.  Oh, and please validate how you know what I think, especially when it's not what I said.

Should I assume you have super powers?

Reality - I don't care if you think I'm "smart." I don't care if you think I have the brain of a hamster.  I don't care if you don't like me, don't think I'm cool, don't belong is your club, or whatever else you care to assert to yourself.  I don't control your brain cells, have no intent on trying to, and even if I could, I wouldn't find much value in it.  Well, maybe for about 10 minutes so you can go make me some pancakes.  After that I would gladly relinquish it so that you can go back to whatever nonsense you want to tell yourself.

[Amarok]

Da what?  What small novel? Title and date would be sufficient.  Oh, and please validate how you know what I think, especially when it's not what I said.

The fact on and on as for how i know you can't seem to compress you key concepts generally people who are trying get to the point  don't feel the need to pad their statements . I never said i could read your thoughts i can make observations on your writing style . 

Should I assume you have super powers?

You don't need super powers to observe the way you write i have thing called eyes 

Reality - I don't care if you think I'm "smart." I don't care if you think I have the brain of a hamster.  I don't care if you don't like me, don't think I'm cool, don't belong is your club, or whatever else you care to assert to yourself.  I don't control your brain cells, have no intent on trying to, and even if I could, I wouldn't find much value in it.  Well, maybe for about 10 minutes so you can go make me some pancakes.  After that I would gladly relinquish it so that you can go back to whatever nonsense you want to tell yourself.

This just reinforces my observation it took you entire rambling  paragraph to say "I don't care what you think "

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Da what?  What small novel? Title and date would be sufficient.  Oh, and please validate how you know what I think, especially when it's not what I said.

The fact on and on as for how i know you can't seem to compress you key concepts generally people who are trying get to the point  don't feel the need to pad their statements . I never said i could read your thoughts i can make observations on your writing style . 

Should I assume you have super powers?

You don't need super powers to observe the way you write i have thing called eyes 

Reality - I don't care if you think I'm "smart." I don't care if you think I have the brain of a hamster.  I don't care if you don't like me, don't think I'm cool, don't belong is your club, or whatever else you care to assert to yourself.  I don't control your brain cells, have no intent on trying to, and even if I could, I wouldn't find much value in it.  Well, maybe for about 10 minutes so you can go make me some pancakes.  After that I would gladly relinquish it so that you can go back to whatever nonsense you want to tell yourself.

This just reinforces my observation it took you entire rambling  paragraph to say  "I don't care what you think "

I can compress them, but I choose not to.  I use extra detail because I'm considering potential objections and eliminating them as best as possible before someone tries to create a whammy on a technicality.  In this setting, it's a good idea.