>1. El conjunto de verdades es finito o infinito.
I'll grant you this if you amend it to say something along the lines of, "the set of true statements is finite or infinite".
>1.1. Si es finito, está limitado o bien por una verdad, o bien por una no-verdad.
You haven't showed that it needs to be limited by anything. The set of people is finite and it doesn't have the type of limit you propose. Would you say that the set of people is limited by a person or by a non-person? That doesn't even make any sense.
>1.1.1. Si está limitado por una verdad, esta verdad es ilimitada, es decir, es Dios.
This makes no sense. The set of positive real numbers less than or equal to 5 contains and is limited by 5. However, 5 is not limitless and it is certainly not God. Please support your assertion.
>1.1.2. Si está limitado por una no-verdad, se trata de pseudoverdades que encubren una contradicción última. En este caso la proposición "existe un sistema finito de verdades limitadas por una no-verdad" también sería falso, y de ahí el absurdo de predicar tal orden de cosas.
Again, this makes no sense. You just went through and assumed (for whatever it's worth) that you have a finite set of truths that is "limited" by an non-truth. By simply taking this leg of the proof, "a finite system of truths limited by a non-truth exists" is true. You've given no justification for declaring it false.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a set being limited by a non member. The set of all positive real numbers that are strictly less than 5 does not contain yet is limited by 5. It doesn't force us to conclude that we are dealing with pseudonumbers.
>1.2. Si es infinito, cuenta o no cuenta con una Verdad primera.
??? What is the first truth? You haven't defined it and it certainly doesn't fall out of your proof so far. There is no reason to believe a finite set must have an element that is considered to be first. The set of independent spatial dimensions is finite. There is no reason label any of these set elements as "first".
>1.2.1. Si cuenta con una Verdad primera al comienzo de la sucesión (imaginemos un tronco del que derivan infinitas ramas), entonces esa Verdad es autorreferente, causa sui y, por consiguiente, Dios. Su verdad no requiere ni la lógica ni la constatación empírica, ya que depende de ella misma.
This assumes what you are trying to show. You've given no justification for believing that there is a succession of truths that must come from a "first truth". Just as the elements of the set of blue pens in my house do not have to all flow from some first blue pen in my house set element, you've provided no reasoning to show why your example should be treated as a special case.
>1.2.2. Si no cuenta con una Verdad primera, entonces la proposición "la verdad es la verdad" resulta falsa, lo que invalida el resto de verdades y nos coloca en la situación de 1.1.2.
You haven't provided anything that would indicate that not including the "first truth" (whatever that is) in the set of all truths, should result in "the truth is the truth" being false. If "the truth is the truth" is true, then it is included in the set of all true statements regardless of whether any elements of that set are labelled as the first element of that set.
You also have neglected to handle the case where the set is infinite.