I don't see why an intelligible world implies intent, and in fact I think some of the fundamentals like first cause concepts, existence being eternal / outside of time etc, are themselves unintelligible. Could just be me, though.

As far as the world that "just is", while unsatisfactory, it's no better or worse than a God that "just is". Isn't this a draw?

Bonus Q. Do you (and you naked_rectitude since you gave a "well said") think God descriptions (like you gave, this 'eternal mode') are intelligible? I'm not leading this anywhere, just curious. Theists can trot out lists of characteristics such as infinite, immaterial / spirit, eternal, and so on, that sound like they should be meaningful but I don't know how to apply them to an actual, existing 'thing' that make sense.

I've said many times that both concepts are illogical, given our understanding of things (laws of physics, etc.) God does not make sense, in that an eternal being has always been, and despite Hawking's best intentions here, I don't think he proposes anything better, and probably worse.

I will say though, given the choice to believe in a transcendent cause, I think that an intelligent one makes more sense than an immaterial one. If I had to choose the best of the worst (logically speaking) I would choose intelligent designer. I think that an eternal God is better than an eternal universe, even if both seem impossible.

You assume they are separate things...

Not if you grant the universe intelligence, in which case the universe could be God, as long as it's not only material.

Is there such a thing as a proven fact wrt the characteristics of God, or any other god? If not we can take that as given.

How does Hawking reject that claim, have you seen something he's said to that effect?

He says so in the video. It's only 45 minutes long, and he does speak about other things. It's worth a watch even if you don't care about the origins debate.

It's weird that the creator of numerous books, papers, films and theories, as he sits in his created house, surrounded by all the created gadgets that help him, talking with all the humans created by two parents--literally surrounded by creations and creators all the time--can't fathom or even allow a .1% possibility that there is a Creator behind all these little creators creating things.

It would be, if any theists were claiming God “just is.” None are, so it’s not.

God is often described via negativa, meaning, by what he is not like. For instance, if the only thing you’ve ever tasted is salt and the only taste you’ve ever experienced is salty, I can’t tell you what sugar tastes like. If I tell you sugar tastes sweet, that’s meaningless to you. Hence, the only way I can describe the taste of sugar to you is by saying it’s unlike salty. The same goes for the eternal. If the only mode of being you’ve experienced is the temporal mode, all I can say is there is another mode, unlike the temporal, and call it the eternal mode. So while something like the Beatific Vision may be meaningless to you, it’s not to those who’ve had the experience and revealed it, or even to those in quest of it.

That would be nice. But let me ask you this: Why should physicists include ‘eternal’ or ‘creation’ or ‘nothing’ in their vernacular?

Why bother- lets just wait a few years and someone else will find the answer to that. That theory reminds me of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Maybe it's built into the formula of the universe that it's supposed to be difficult to find out the beginning of things- just like a programmer programs some kind of mechanism into his code to make it harder to read, harder to copy etc. If there's a creator then that same creator must have a way to destroy it all? It hasn't been destroyed yet, so maybe Hawkings is right? Because if i created something and didn't like it- i would just delete it and try again.
Are there any traces of parallel universes- a.k.a those -verses that were either deleted or just created for funz and kept as pets or something to look at when the creator is bored?

thanks to those who chipped in re "time" (esp. td). I think the explanations provided are correct. SH is referring to the space-time continuum and not the "idea of time".

I think I've seen it actually, it was on the Discovery channel a while back. Don't remember that claim though so I'll give it another watch while I'm working. One advantage of being self employed

I don't see how that can be the case. The space-time continuum didn't exist until there was a universe for it to exist in, so God couldn't have created the universe if he was in the space-time continuum because he wouldn't have existed until he created the universe and he can't create himself if he doesn't exist, he has to be outside any version of time you care to define, in which case a cause can exist outside time and Hawking would be contradicting himself in premise 2.

I watched it again and I still don't see where he addresses the issue of God existing outside of time, he just says that there can't be a creator because there's no time for a creator to exist in. If I've missed an argument for how God can't exist outside time, can you tell me where it was?

Also, I think this presents problems for Hawking in that he actually strengthens the argument for a God to be the creator of the universe. If a cause can't exist outside time, and the only exception to that is God, then IF there was a creator, it can only have been God.

Self-employment is the only reasonable way of life, but it can also lead to reading 2p2 all day long, and not doing any work

Sorry, I thought you hadn't seen it. He doesn't say "God can't exist out of time" but he implies it by his conclusion, don't you think? That there was "no time for a creator to exist in" says to me that he doesn't believe God transcends time.

Yeah, I completely agree.

Hmmm, do you mean these are concepts that the physicists should not preoccupy with, because they are not observable per se?

I always found it interesting that Hawking had said he himself doesn't concern himself with things before the big bang (which makes sense), which is why I was surprised that he made these claims.

Ha, true, I've lost many many hours of 'productive' work time on here, but I consider that what I got from it was of far greater value to me.

I think he might be just ignoring the Cosmological argument because the universe can exist without a cause, and then reinforces that by saying that no cause could exist out of time anyway?

It's close to the chicken and the egg here. Almost certainly he wouldn't have concluded that there was no time before the big bang and that this meant there wasn't time for a cause to exist in, if he didn't have the ability to say that protons "pop" into existence as an alternative explanation.

I see what you're saying, that makes sense. First cause is not necessary ("pop" theory), so he rejects it and supports it by showing that a first cause is impossible via no time. With this though, he needs to accept that God cannot transcend time, or else it seems we're back at the start. I'm not sure how he got to the conclusion that God needs our conception of time to exist, but he's there.

A great physicist ventures outside the realm of physics. Nothing to see here.

Contemptuous statement.

Equally as banal as someone saying to you "you don't know it, but you are unintentionally glorifying the natural universe every time you attribute its beauty and wonder to God."

Completely unrelated question, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Peter Hitchens, given that you're a big Christopher Hitchens fan. Do you give him any more respect or credence because they're related, or do you put him in the same category as anyone who shares his ideologies?

What God? He has no need of that hypothesis...

+1. Every believer of every religion that has ever existed feels that way, and of course they're all right.

It was a somewhat loaded statement though since I don't think that there is a 'creativity of existence', because it implies a conscious creator. There is simply the appearance of creativity and design, which some people take to mean a creator and designer.

I agree, he doesn't, but he invokes God when he rejects him as an alternative. That's why I think this whole video is strange, it seems very unlike him to delve into this subject, especially when his conclusion seems more philosophical.

I usually feel sorry for Peter when I see his prose, and in particular his debates.

They were notoriously competitive, so for him to wallow so feebly in the shadow of his brother (in a similar field no less) must be seriously psychologically damaging. Probably what lead him to seeking divine inspiration; I suspect he finds solace in the book of Revelation.

One need only watch a few minutes of them debating each other on YouTube to realise it really isn't a fair fight. The man writes for the Daily Mail, which if you're not from the UK you might not know, but is a major source of national embarrassment.

This rebuke has nothing to do with him being religious, though. I find Rowan Williams to be one of the most effective orators on the subject, notwithstanding that I can't agree with him.