Outside of Space/Time

Discuss

 

If you are referring that the complexity of a watch needs a creator, I would simply tell you that the clock has always existed. It may not always have been o clock, but one day, at a certain point in time after millions of years of evolution, a being capable of reason emerged, eventually creating such a clock.

 

"Outside" is meant only as an analogy to express a hierarchy of being; more specifically to imply that there is an "act of reality" which is neither an extension of space or time but is the ontological foundation from which and in which we discover physical reality. When I say "in", I mean only that there is a being that is required for the sustenance and existence of potential or contingent being. Physical reality is "timelessly" generated by this being and is more accurately understood in philosophical terms - at least in my mind - as an "existential cause", that which is the source and giver of potential and qualitative physical reality. We cannot comprehend what it is like to be a timeless spaceless cause, since our only analogy to a cause is one that is in time and space; but still, in understanding that physical reality is finite, contingent, and potential in its ontological extent, we must admit and infer necessarily that such a being exists under pain of ontological contradiction.

Some contradictions are only apparent and are merely representative of things beyond our comprehension. Still, some things can never be considered possible, because their possibility would undermine reason itself and thus the very notion of "truth" and being. Out of nothing comes nothing is one of those things that cannot be challenged, since possibility is a function of being; its an expression of something. It cannot be only an apparent contradiction because if it were true that a thing could come from nothing, then being would be essentially no different from nothing; but there evidently is an essential difference. In the hierarchy of impossibility this is superior to all impossibilities. That a Being is, precedes the question of what a being can do, since being is required before one can speak of the function or power of being. Thus if one is stuck between two apparent contradictions, one must choose as true that which is necessary for the existence of the whole; thus If an existential cause does not exist, then there is no rational basis to think that potentiality or possibility can become ontologically actual or real; no reason for change. Thus there would be no reason why a potentially evolving universe should exist either.

I am not saying irrationality created rationality. If you have only two choices and both of them present an apparent contradiction, it must be that one of them is not really a contradiction, but rather it is an incomprehensible thing, or something that we haven't yet understood. In analyzing both, you must choose as possible the one that is necessary for the existence of the potential whole, since the whole is contingent upon it for "esse". Being is always superior in comparison to absolutely nothing. That something can come out of nothing is always impossible and thus cannot be thought of as an "incomprehensible". Therefore there must be an eternal ultimate reality, from which all potential reality is born and in which potential beings are sustained. That you cannot understand how that is possible, is irrelevant.