I think like neeel just said, there is no "outside" of the universe, or external to our universe. If there was, that would simply be part of the universe. Agreed that it's problematic to speak of such things, but I don't think you should, either, it's not logical.

If I say separate to the universe then we enter the realms of an entity that we have no reason to believe in, no understanding of how it could be, and no way to ever achieve either. This, as I said, is a strong reason to reject any such thing. It is not a reason to say positively that no such thing could possibly be.

I'm in complete agreement that we can't meaningfully discuss it but to state it as an impossibility simply because we cannot conceive of it seems like an argument from ignorance.

I also think in terms of forcefulness now having some vague understandings of how the universe can come to be simply by coming to be is a big leap in leaving the god notion behind us. The God of the Gaps argument was always wrong and yet there's something satisfying about it becoming less and less persuasive.

Scientifically speaking, you can't speak of things outside the universe, but if this something "beyond" the universe is some other dimension or "area" that is not bound by the known dimensions, that I can concede that we simply don't know and can't rule it out, philosophically speaking. If you simply want to add more of the same to our universe, that is, make it slightly bigger than we think it is, then that is just part of the universe. If what you mean to be outside of the universe, is just more physical space with the same known laws, then that's just the same universe we know, it's just bigger than we thought.

Edit: To think of something outside of the universe as plausible is somewhat circular. I think a good example is when speaking of epistemology, people will often point to things like Graham's number, as things we can't know, or conversely we know that we can't know Graham's number. It's somewhat useless to suggest that perhaps in another universe, our minds are so proficient that we are able to calculate and discern Graham's number, so we can actually know it. All we are doing here is grabbing something that's one way, and suggesting that it may be another way.

It’s one thing to say that the universe is all there is, and another to say that the space-time manifold we find ourselves in is all there is. I don’t think the former is exhausted by the latter. Prior to Big Bang cosmology, the consensus was that the universe morphed through different physical states. I don’t think much has changed, just that we’re now talking about a much more subtle, non-discrete physical state antecedent to the Big Bang, not an absolute void. So the universe, to me, encompasses both its pre-bang, non-temporal, non-spatial state, and its post-bang temporal, spatial state. However, if you delimit your definition of the universe to the latter, then I don’t see how your explanation is anymore plausible than theirs. I think the supra/super natural explanation becomes more plausible only if we’re starting from an absolute void. A place we, or cosmologists, needn’t start from if all we’re trying to do is explain the post-bang universe.
I’m quite sure there’s no “= Nothing” in Hawking’s equations. The “nothing” he’s talking about isn’t nothing in an absolute sense, it’s more akin to a zero we get when our assets equal our liabilities. So when positive and negative energies are equal we have zero energy, just as when our assets equal our liabilities we have zero net worth. However, those are zeros of something, energy or net worth, i.e., a context apart from which they’re meaningless.

Doesn't this make the universe eternal? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the universe being defined this way.

I see your point, but I'm not sure if SH means it to be this way. From the video, I think he implies nothing in the sense of lack of anything, but I'm not entirely sure. Edit: If there was something, wouldn't his argument of causation not being possible, ultimately fail?

At the end of 'A Universe From Nothing' Lawrence Krauss, having gone through various 'nothings', mentions 'the quantum haze from which me may have come' and the existence of 'processes' at work. As I understand it his theme is that there is this (and perhaps more) Universe bec the potential that was there had to be realized. Hawking appears to be saying that since there was no time prior to the Bang there was no time for a God to do anything therefor no God which seems to me to be unwarranted since it's not provable and sounds like conjecture.

Besides all of that I don't think 'science' is at all certain what time even is. If you search youtube for 'Sean Carroll time' you can watch some vids of him trying to explain it.

From this universe, how is anyone supposed to be able to say w/ any certainty what is happening outside this universe...before or during it's existence?

Why should this be taken any more seriously than any other claims about the universe?

The short version is that in "modern" (non-classic) physics space and time are seen as different aspects of the same thing; the space-time continuum. This is also empirically supported by experiments that show that time is affected by relative movement and gravity, which shouldn't be the case if classic physics (time as a constant process) held true.

It's not that hard to grasp really, it's just that we are a bit bound by the perceptions we learn as kids. There have actually existed several cultures that view space and time as one thing. I'll try and explain it in a very simple manner, but you should also be warned that as I am a far cry from a physicist, my understanding of this is very simplistic:

What confounds the issue is that as far as our everyday lives are concerned the classic understanding is sufficient. Bending of spacetime does not occur at a level that makes a non-constant understanding of time necessary for us to function. An analogy could be how a view of the earth as flat was sufficient for many archaic cultures. They didn't need the 3rd dimension when considering the shape of the world (even if they used it intuitively in their everyday life), just like most of us don't need the 4th dimension when considering the shape of the universe (even if we use it intuitively in our everyday lives).

If you can find a copy of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, read the chapter entitled "Time and Beyond Time" I believe you will find it beneficial.

I keep hearing great things about Lewis, and I'm not very familiar with him aside from the children books I read as a kid, and the odd quote. I think it's time I give him a go. Thanks.

Read the chapter, I especially like the illustration of the novel being written. I agree with his interpretation, but I don't think someone like Hawking will agree to it.

I remember reading that if God were to address everyone on earth, devoting one second to each person, it would take him 200 and some odd years. It came to mind while reading the chapter.

I'm guessing God would be pretty good at multitasking tho'.

Only if god is a 'she' obviously. Or so I'm told

I have never met Dr. Hawking, but my guess is that you're correct--he would not agree. I hope you enjoy reading the rest of the book.

Got it on my desktop ready to be read. Thanks!

What was Stephen Hawkings wording?

Instead of "A cause can only exist in time", "An effect can only exist in time" makes much more sense. Otherwise I would question if the Big Bang could cause anything.

The exact quote was, "We finally found something that doesn’t have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

My argument, then which hints a living creator is as follows

1. Through observation causes have an effect that is logically consistent. If you plant an apple and it grows into an orange tree it would be surprising. In this event you would normally reassess the causes.

2. There has been an uncaused cause responsible for creating other causes and effects.

3. By observation and personal experience there is life.

Therefore a logical, consistent effect of an uncaused cause is life. The uncaused cause must be capable of conceiving life.

Although Hawking's quoted comment is obviously wrong, you are barking up the wrong tree on this side issue. The reason why so many scientists tend to be non believers is because they have shown that so many individual things that appear to be directly designed are in fact probably not, but are exactly what would be expected from initial conditions coupled with the laws of logic and physics. More and more, scientists show that things could result from no god or a deistic one. When they say things like "the esophagus was designed to keep stomach acid out" they don't actually mean it.

Design Implies a Designer: Teleology & Teleonomy



'Design requires a designer' is not problematic to biologists or other scientists. The argument from design is intended to be a teleological argument, but this creates a burden on the creationist to demonstrate that the design in question is actually teleological rather than teleonomic.

I was not previously familiar with the term teleonomy, the difference is intention / purpose. An analogy can be drawn from whittling wood (whittling is apparently something that outdoors-y Canadian types do for fun, and it is explained better by the video maker). Whittling, I believe, can be an unguided, 'intentionless' process whereby a piece of wood is whittled down into a shape according to the properties within the wood itself and other factors, rather than any intentions of the whittler. Eventually some object is formed.
In contrast, sometimes the whittler has something in mind, perhaps something functional (the example in the video is a tent peg, which he often makes while camping from available pieces of wood). In this case, there is intention preceding the whittling process, and without that intention, the object would never have been formed in the first place.

Don't worry, despite this whittling analogy, the video is actually framed within the context of biology / evolution!

Design and design language does not imply creationism, and you don't need to reflexively avoid it or say "they didn't mean it." They can mean it (vocabulary permitting).

I thought that Christians claim that God exists outside of time, God exists in an eternal 'now'. If that's the case, then isn't Hawking's second premise false? Because a cause can exist 'out of time'.

Hawking rejects the claim that God can exist outside of time. All theists need this claim to be true, or else God falls apart. God needs to transcend space and time, but it's not exactly a proven fact, either.

The stock argument for intention is the intelligibility of the world: intelligibility implies intelligence, moreso than its lack; and intelligence implies agency, moreso than its lack.

The Intelligent Design movement has really muddied the waters for the traditional design argument, which is just about intention. For example, with the watch analogy, it’s not so much the form and function of the watch that leads us to infer intention. As you alluded, that could just as well be teleonomic. What leads us to think it’s intentional in the first place is that its forms, functions and workings are intelligible. So the burden shifts back to proponents of the non-intentional position to account for an intelligible world. That’s a burden that hasn’t been met with anything other than saying it just is, which isn’t saying much at all. So while the theist argument can’t overcome skepticism, it fares better against those taking a contrarian position, since the theist has some reasons, whereas his opponent has none.

Theists believe God’s mode of being is eternal. If that’s the case then there’s no before and after, sequence of happenings, or cause and effect in God’s view of the world. So theists can agree that the world always existed, that there was never a time when the world didn’t exist or when the world had yet to exist, without abandoning the claim that God created the world. In God’s mind, the eternal mode, he sees things as they are, not as they appear or manifest. Manifestation, with before and after, sequence, and cause and effect, is what we see because it’s the only way we can apprehend the infinite looking through a finite lens. In other words, being limited to a finite mode, we can’t see all time and everything all at once, i.e., what’s in God’s mind or the omniscient view. As Aquinas says, we have to go through the temporal to get to the eternal, and through the finite to get to the infinite. And if we can arrive there, or at least catch a glimpse of it, we can see the world and us as they really are, not as it and we appear in manifestation.

Well said.

Now, does the atheist need to accept this definition of God, as one being eternal? Is that an inherent attribute? It seems like Hawking starts with a blank slate, works backwards, and discovers God does not fit in with logic. If he were to accept God as eternal, I'm not sure he ever would have concluded "causation exists only in time", or else it just seems rash on his part.