elucidator:
Only if you think of time in a linear fashion
but only within the laws of reality as defined for that universe.
Forgive me, I have overshot your sense of humor. My “God Exists” demonstratum is a bit of harmless whimsey (well, thats what it was when it left here). I’ll take your word for it that the laws of reality for the Universe is defined. If you know that you already know a LOT more than me. Could be. Nothing is impossible. Unless it is, of course.
It was more or less intended as a snark on the futility of the rationalist mind when grappling for a toe-hold on the REALLY Big Question. Hunting butterflies with a hammer. Might actually get one, but it wont fly anymore, and wont look near as good.
My apologies. I didn’t mean to come off sounding like a know-it-all John W. Kennedy or Wendall what’s his name type. My remark was just a thought about the nature of time, and yes trying to understand the unknowable with a limited mind. 
Well, it was certainly a demonstration of the futility of attacking the REALLY Big Question with bad logic. Of course, bad logic usually fails for the really small questions, too.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Just because something is not impossible does not mean it is inevitable.
That which contradicts itself is impossible, and false.
God DID create a rock so big he couldn’t lift it–metaphorically. He gave us will, and he cannot direct will, for it is free of him.
Meditate upon this wisdom now.
–AUM–
Remember, the path to Enlightenment is not a path to a door, but a journey leading forever into the distance.
Wonderful, foolsguinea!
As I noted above, slythe proved that if there is a first cause, it must be volitional, i.e., God in somebody’s sense.
Pascal’s Wager, brought up in a related thread, holds only if we postulate that this Volitional First Cause is interested in the behavior of humans as relates to “belief” in Him. I would submit that there is evidence suggesting that He is indeed so interested, although much of it if not all is disputable on various grounds. (My threads trying to explore how much credence one can give to those grounds seem to have gone the way of Schrodinger’s Horse – the one in an airtight stable governed by a radioactive timer, subject to beating if not already dead…)
Poly, I am afraid Slythe proved no such thing. You extension of his reasoning is interesting, but it also proves nothing unless you can demonstrate the existence of that “unliftable rock” which you use to disqualify “A non-purposive, non-volitive first cause .”
Of course, there is also Gaudere’s observation that causality ned not have been preserved in the early moments of the cosmos.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
By my argument, a non-volitive first cause would be caught on the horns of the dilemma: either it would not be able to create such a rock or it would not be able to lift it, and therefore be limited in some capacity by something beyone itself. It would therefore not be a valid first cause, since rules outside it would exist, and presumably be caused by something else, which would then become the first cause, unless… You see where this argument is going. A volitive first cause, however, could choose which side of the paradox it wished to stand on (creating the rock or lifting it), and therefore resolve the paradox. Whether or not it actually created the rock is irrelevant; the potentiality of its creating the rock is what is key. Any first cause would need to be able to (or would be limited by something outside itself, getting back to the regressive argument cited above), and would therefore be caught on the horns of the dilemma unless it could exercise will.