Does the concept of a primary mover make any more sense outside spacetime?

[lemondiesel]

Sorry, hopefully this hasn’t been posted.

The Pope’s astronomer Brother Consolmagno said: "The whole idea of what creation means is not a case of who wound up the clock and sets it going, it’s the fact there’s a clock to be wound up in the first place.
“A god that started things up would be a pagan god. The god I believe in is outside space and time.”
uk.news.yahoo.com/21/201009…od-s-children-4b158bc.html

 

[freerf]

Couldn’t find the link. Not sure what the premis of your post is, but it sounds interesting. Maybe you should develop your thought a bit more.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sorry, hopefully this hasn’t been posted.

“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 cuase, 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.

Therefore logically and ontologically speaking; I prime mover must exist outside of the space time continuum; this is to say, distinct from such natures.

 

[lemondiesel]

Irrationality created rationality? Out of nothing comes nothing that creates something with a pattern? Why not say we created ourselves in some unknown infinite bliss?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Irrationality created rationality?

I said nothing of the sort. I said some perceived contradictions are only apparent. 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 analysing 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”; the why of which I explained in my last post. 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.

 

[lemondiesel]

You may find my philosophy very childish haha, but please be patient. For me, the ideas that make the most sense are the ones that can easily be explained.

In analysing 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”.

Aren’t you assuming that “out of nothing comes nothing” is the only possible choice? Couldn’t I say that nothing has always existed, but this nothing is not the nothing we comprehend?

In order to even have space and time, at least two physical objects must exist. Couldn’t this nothing be a single point (the smallest point imaginable, yet the largest point imaginable?)

Out of nothing comes nothing could mean From a single point (which is incomprehensible to us) there existed potential, until this single point expanded to create everything.