Cube

I have to stop you right there: "Why there is something rather than nothing" is recognized as the penultimate question in philosophy, so hardly 'hackneyed.' 'Nothing' is the absence of anything, and the 'something' is usually referent to our universe: "Why does our universe exist?" is far from being a meaningless question to ask, and brings us full circle to the contingent finitude of our universe, the need for an external cause, and the ultimate 'brute fact' assertions that both atheists and theists have to make to solve it.

If that is true, then there can be no transcendent God "outside the universe." 

Well, the universe is not a place, or even a tangible object. It is just a description of all things that exist. A concept.

Not true. 

You effectively just said there is no reality.

We can measure any number of things about the universe: the expansion rate of the universe, the curvature of the universe, etc. That seems pretty tangible to me.

   No I didn't. I said that the universe is a descriptor, not a tangible thing.

   What color is the universe? It is every color because it is a descriptor of everything.

   Where is the universe? It is anywhere there is anything, because that is the definition of the universe.

   Some words we use every day as if they were real things don't actually exist, they are just a word, a description.

   One example is "cold". It doesn't exist, it is simply a description of the lack of heat. There is a limit to it. It can always get hotter, because heat is an actual thing, an energy. But it can only get so cold. Once all the heat is gone, that's it.

   "Dark" is another example. It doesn't exist, it is simply a way of describing how much light there "isn't". That is why there is such a thing as "total darkness", but not "total brightness".

   We use these words as if they are actual things, even though they are just concepts or descriptions. 
   The Universe is just a word. As an object, it doesn't exist.

Oh, that's all you meant? Well, of course, all language is semiotic (symbolic, representative). Yes, 'universe' is the word we give 'it,' but 'it' is still a real, tangible, measurable 'thing' that actually exists; regardless of what name you give 'it'.

You just opened yourself up with this one. Any moment I expect @stephen_33 will swoop in and argue the same thing about 'God'.

He'd be wrong. "God" as simply a concept as opposed to a personality is an atheistic concept.

What I said was that there is no such thing as something being "outside the universe", because by definition the universe would encompass whatever you named as outside of it.

I'll post a forum here with my views upon the origin of life and the cosmos, but not in this forum.

The fine-tuning argument is literally incredibly improbable.

From the fact that the fine-tuning of the four cosmological constants alone is so great, arguing in favor of evolution is simply absurd in this day and age.

O/k, so let's start with the so-called definition that Swinburne gives...

"spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things'. I use 'God' as the name of the person picked out by this. description. ( Swinburne (2004)"

That's the result of a rapid search but does it sum up what Swinburne describes as 'God'?

Without me having to read 10,000 words of his, what justification does he give for his conclusion that 'God' is necessarily eternal? Is it being suggested that our Universe is not self-sustaining, that it needs a kind of 'eternal caretaker' to keep the boiler fired up?

If not, I'd have to suggest that such a creator would need to exist only as long as it took to trigger the Big Bang.

"perfectly free" - I assume this means having nothing that restrains it, no impediments or restrictions to its power?

"omnipotent" I have no particular problem with this although yet again such an entity requires only that power that's needed to create our Universe and no more. So arguably, absolute power (if that's what Swinburne means by 'omnipotent') is not strictly a given.

"omniscient" - much the same as for omnipotent because only sufficient omniscience is needed as to be able to create our Universe, no more.

"perfectly good" - now this is the one that I have the greatest difficulty with. How is it possible to reach that conclusion from the starting point that such a being created the Universe?

And more precisely what is meant here by 'good'?

"the creator of all things" - this is wonderfully circular surely? We start from the assumption that a conscious entity that people like to call 'God' decided to bring our Universe into existence from 'nothing'. Then we conclude that this entity was the creator of all things - well yes of course, isn't that our assumption?

And lastly: "I use 'God' as the name of the person" - 'God' is a 'person' now? Some of the language he uses seems rather imprecise/woolly?

But most of this is missing my main objection because when I refer to the 'nature' of 'God' I'm particularly thinking of what its composed of and how something that has no physicality can possibly think at all.

* Do you have any quick descriptions from Conway or Anthony Flew?

Why? I'm making the point that our current state of knowledge is not necessarily our final state of knowledge.

Isn't it important to bear that in mind? At the close of the 19th. century didn't one scientist foolishly claim that all major discoveries had been made and there was little more for science to do than tie up the loose ends?

Then Einstein published his works on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics reveled to us all just what a bizarre reality we live in.

I suspect that it will become apparent in the decades and centuries to come that the fundamental constants that govern the physical Universe will be found to be what they are because they can be no other.

Our current state of knowledge is not our final one, yet our state of knowledge about the inside of a box cannot explain what happens on the outside.

Quantum mechanics is yet another proof of design. 

'Because they can be no other'? What does that really even mean? Why could the universe not be unfriendly towards life, and why should it not be unfriendly towards life, assuming that it was not created for life

I think I may be referring to something other than what was asked - if the question is 'why is there our/this Universe rather then no Universe', I agree that it's a reasonable question to ask.

But if the question is why is there this Universe and the potential for such a structure to arise or nothing, then I believe it can only be the former. Is it a fruitful line of questioning? If 'nothing' there can be no potential for change (to bring a Universe into existence) or any creator to do so.

If 'something', a creator is possible but so is some natural precursor for our Universe.

The best I can do on the question of 'something versus nothing' is this...

Imagine such a binary outcome relies on the toss of a conceptual coin. But since one of the two possible outcomes precludes the possibility of any such coin-toss, in what way is it a possible outcome?

That we observe and experience the potential for change in our Universe tells us I believe that only something is possible.

The Universe is very unfriendly towards life but life emerged in this corner of the Milky Way because there happens to be a planet that's suitably adapted for it. It may well be that such planets are extremely rare.

And you don't have to look far to see how 'unfriendly' some planets can be - how well adapted would you say Mars is for life?

And as I said if there is nothing "outside the universe," then you just ruled out the possibility of a transcendent God. 

Multiverse. Another example of something that would be "outside [our] universe."

True, the fine-tuning argument is a notable challenge to metaphysical naturalism. But it is also irrelevant to evolution. Biological evolution is a completely separate issue from cosmology and metaphysics, and should not be confused with the fine-tuning argument. They are two different things.

Yes, I already know you disagree with these academics. But my point was simply in reference to your "grasping at straws" comment on there being any possible connection between supernatural causation and the God of any religion. My point was not to argue the merits of such a connection, but merely to point out that there are respected academic works on the subject, so it can hardly be said to be "grasping at straws" (even if you disagree with the merits of such works).

It's irrelevant because my list was titled "The current state of things..."  Of course knowledge is always changing. No one said these statements are set in stone and can't change with future discoveries. That goes without saying. But it also doesn't change the fact that science is always only a statement of what we currently know now. Speculation about what may or may not occur in the future does nothing to help us or advance the conversation. YECs adopt a similar strategy when they argue that just because there is paltry evidence for a global flood doesn't prove that conclusive evidence of a global flood won't be found in the future. But these are just attempts to save face and avoid acknowledging the truth that:

Just as there is currently no evidence for a global flood at any time in earth’s history, so also science currently has no explanation for the physical laws & fine-tuned constants of our universe. 

That's just being honest.

   If the universe is the all encompassing everything... how is there something outside of it?