The OP admits that this only proves a first cause of some sort. It doesn't prove a supernatural God. He just chooses to call that first cause "God" even though it could perfectly be naturalistic, nothing more.
That said, it's a strange argument to allow the first cause to be a component of the thing it eventually causes. And this is still relying on naive and outdated notions of time and causality. The OP fails to consider the implications of modern cosmology regarding these notions and others.
That said, it's a strange argument to allow the first cause to be a component of the thing it eventually causes. And this is still relying on naive and outdated notions of time and causality. The OP fails to consider the implications of modern cosmology regarding these notions and others.
