Youre still missing the point  It is not that formalizing set theory into firstorder logic creates a paradox  that makes it sound as though firstorder logic is too strong whereas what is actually going on here is that firstorder logic is too weak to capture all of the intended meaning of the notion of uncountable  The only way to get a paradox here in the sense of something contrary to intuition is if you have an intuition that firstorder logic ought to be able to capture all of that semantic content  But that intuition is just simply wrong and the resolution is to get a better intuition after which there is no more paradox