It depends on where you start. The causation may very well be ill-logical, as Godel saw somethings are true, but not logical, i.e. provable. There are limitations to the logical system. It may very well be that the universe's start, ex-nihilo, is not provable, except with some assumption. The nature of the assumption as ontology showed, is the key. The subsequent difficulties with post tempore role of the prime mover are not part of the issue. Neither is the problem of multiple gods. The initial proofs or questions did not deal with it. (Except the proof shown where trying to deal with a lesser god admitted there must be a greater one)
But you have to agree, that being here, it had to come from somewhere. It is very hard to argue that it did not start. That there should be an unthinkable super natural, or a thinkable super natural is not in the argument a priori. Indeed if one is looking for possible causation, the nature of it is not an issue.
God may very well be eating water cress sandwiches in the interim. Or he may be experimenting wilfully. Other questions to explore after the "proof" of God, would be his nature. Tricky. All good, interfering, etc.. hmmmmmmm
EC<:-} |
