@Alex K - I am reluctant to put forth any particular attribute that the potentiality itself may have, other than non-nothingness. To do so would be making an argument from ignorance, as I have no evidence on which to draw. If someone were to object to the argument on the grounds that the proposed potentiality is a logical absurdity, I could put forth candidate scenarios for what the potentiality might look like. This could take the form of a God or it could be some sort of multiverse of the type Lawrence Krauss describes in A Universe From Nothing (he answers a question about universe producing quantum fluctuations at about 57:33 in this lecture entitled A Universe From Nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs). My argument is not meant to address particular attributes of the potentiality. That is a question I hope, in time, science will answer.
As for any assumption that time exists independent of the universe, I tried to be as careful as I could, not to assume any particular temporal properties of the universe. Time may exist outside of our observable universe (if there is a multiverse for example) Or it may not. I think the argument stands in either case.
@Nestor - I am being intentionally vague when I use the term 'state of affairs'. I tried to chose a term that did not carry a burden or make any assumptions about time (as I explained above). You state: "Either it represents the boundary of all being, in which case there literally is nothing beyond it to ponder, or it represents a discontinuity so radical that any material or spatio-temporal antecedents to the big bang lie outside the scope of any possible investigation." I'm not sure I agree. There may be other options. Proposed models of origins in theoretical physics might one day be validated by experimental data. One hopes anyway.
@MysticKnight "Something always had to exist is obvious fact everyone who sincerely reflects knows." - I don't agree with this. I think we shouldn't assume that those things which appear obvious are in fact true, even upon sincere reflection. They still need to be supported with evidence and argument. Let's not forget we are human and we can make mistakes. Not everyone who sincerely reflects on something comes up with the right answer. History is littered with obvious facts that have turned out to be wrong. Let's not commit hubris.
As for any assumption that time exists independent of the universe, I tried to be as careful as I could, not to assume any particular temporal properties of the universe. Time may exist outside of our observable universe (if there is a multiverse for example) Or it may not. I think the argument stands in either case.
@Nestor - I am being intentionally vague when I use the term 'state of affairs'. I tried to chose a term that did not carry a burden or make any assumptions about time (as I explained above). You state: "Either it represents the boundary of all being, in which case there literally is nothing beyond it to ponder, or it represents a discontinuity so radical that any material or spatio-temporal antecedents to the big bang lie outside the scope of any possible investigation." I'm not sure I agree. There may be other options. Proposed models of origins in theoretical physics might one day be validated by experimental data. One hopes anyway.
@MysticKnight "Something always had to exist is obvious fact everyone who sincerely reflects knows." - I don't agree with this. I think we shouldn't assume that those things which appear obvious are in fact true, even upon sincere reflection. They still need to be supported with evidence and argument. Let's not forget we are human and we can make mistakes. Not everyone who sincerely reflects on something comes up with the right answer. History is littered with obvious facts that have turned out to be wrong. Let's not commit hubris.
