Well, physically speaking the 4th dimension of Time can only apply when a 3dimensional ‘thing’ is brought into existence to be applicable in the 4th dimension.
If time, the 4th dimension, requires that at least three other dimensions exists either previously or simultaneously (as is most likely the case) - then it stands to reason that before a 3 dimensional Creation exists, the 4th dimension of Time through which it passes its course cannot exist. Thus, there would be possible a “before 4th dimension” (before time) if the 3 dimensional ‘thing’ upon which the 4th dimension depends on for existence is a finite thing that must be brought into being first for time to likewise begin.
The proof for the 4th dimension of time requiring 3 other dimensions cohesively I would propose is so.
A -1 dimension = a line
B- 2 dimensions = a square
C- 3 dimensions = a cube
D- 4 dimensions = a cube running through time
If it requires a cohesive expression of ABCD in order to make a functioning 4 dimensional object (time existent), and if the existence of D depends on ABC then it stands to reason that you cannot have time without three previous, or simultaneous dimensions.
Another proof would be that if you removed C, or any of the other variables in order to bring about ABD, you’d still only end up with a 3 dimensional object, instead of a 4 dimensional object. Hence it would prove only to moot the whole point as it would revert back to a 4th dimensionless 3d object without the dimension of time involved.
Hence, I believe, in order to have time you must have 3dimensional existence simultaneously or previous to the 4th dimension’s existence.
That means that if God is not a being bound by time nor dimension - then he is capable of existing in the “before”. Though I would not say that necessarily must be so, or that the universe or “The something” is incapable of existing infinitely, I do not know. But I’d also imagine that “The Something” of which the Universe is a part of (Panentheistically speaking) is not too much of a stretch to call “God”.
But it ultimately seems to be true that nothing breeds nothing. Anything that might look as though “something” were arising out of “nothing” would most likely be a case of “something arising out of something we don’t know about, or aren’t observing, or aren’t able to observe”.
Logically speaking, Something just can’t arise out of Nothing. No matter how far you go back, there is no point of which;
“In the Beginning…Nothing created the strings, which made the sub-atomic particle, which made the atom, which made the acid, which made the amphibian, which made the ape, which made the Adam, which made the A-bomb, which made the Apocolypse, which made the Earth go boom.” You ever fall back to a Something, which produced yet another Something into being, even if it be unseen. Evolutionarily speaking, the ape had to come from somewhere, and the amphibian which made the ape had to come out of somewhere, and the acids which made the amphibian had to come out of somewhere…and on and on it goes. Unless, Creation Ex Nihilo by Nihilo is a thing to be taught in schools.
My conclusion has been that there must always be an “irreducible root” - or a “irreducible something”.
This something is either, sentient (and hence call it God) or else it is not sentient, but if it is not sentient then it must be a collection of every necessary variable for probability and chance to bring forth the “Golden Thread of Existence” (as I call it, that is, this functioning universe which can spring forth sentient life) - and in that case you get three lines of thought.
A. *The Something is Sentient. Call it God. *
B. The something is a non-sentient collection of necessary variables which contain all the necessary ingredients to bring forth sentient existence.
*
B.a - If that Something has the necessary variable ingredients to bring forth sentient life into the universe - it must contain the necessary ingredients to spring forth sentience into the very collection of variables; making the collection of variables sentient - The Something becomes Sentient, Call it God. *
Ultimately, it is in my opinion, since Nothing breeds Nothing. That there is a choice regarding an irreducible “Something” from which all of “Something else” sprang. It is a choice between A. The Something is Sentient, or B. The Something contains every necessary variable by which the “Golden Thread of Existence” and Sentience may by chance arise. Yet, ever so even B. contains the possibility of A. Because the collection of variables, by chance, may become sentient due to the very variables being played with by chance and probability that are necessary for bringing about sentience in the first place.
And another speculation - is that if in the case of B. if it be true, is going through infinite reiterations (multi-verses) to bring forth that one universe (ours) where the Golden Thread of Existence has been spun - then it is an inevitable and assured fact of logic that sentience would arise in the collection of variables.
If sentience (or sentience in the collection of variables) requires variables “x, y, z, 2” in a sequence of “2, y, z, x” then probability and chance running at infinite capacity and choosing infinitely each sequence of variables in a collection of “1, a, v, y, 3, n, p, 6, z, 4, x, 7, 2” then at some point you will get the proper sequence of the proper variables “2, y, z, x” arising in the collection, and The Something will assuredly become sentient; especially if you add in exponentiality to the whole ordeal.
The Irreducible Root - The Something; either is God, can become God, or will assuredly become God.
If any of that makes sense. My logic can be flawed, and may certainly be so. But it is my speculation at any rate. 