Edit: In response to Imalec's answer, I must confess I misinterpreted the question, since I didn't understand Hawking's theory. When I first answered this, I was reminded of Carl Sagen's argument as to the meaningless of continuously asking "What came before?". The answer still works for Hawking though. Here's why. I agree with Stephen Hawking in that however this universe began (Big Bang or otherwise), there was a moment where time did not exist. It appears that his statement is based on the fact that time begins with the Big Bang. If this is true, then, of course "before" becomes meaningless, because there is no before. That being said, here is my original answer, with a comment added at the end. End Edit.
In my OPINION, it is not meaningless at all. This is because there are only a few outcomes to continuously asking the question "...and what came before [fill in the blank]?".
One is that we endlessly come up with theories as to what came before.
Second is that we assume that nothing came before, and something spontaneously came into existence or happened.
Third is that something, or someone, caused it all to come into existence and happen, and then we ask where did that something, or someone, come from, and the questioning continues.
The fourth possibility is that there was something, or someone that always existed, and had no beginning, that caused all the rest of the known universe to exist.
The first requires that we ask questions, and theorize until we die. Then our prodigy continue the process, and their's continues, and so on, and no one ever reaches a conclusion. This would, of course, be rather meaningless.
Second, if we assume nothing came before, then questioning what came before is also meaningless.
The third scenario would be equally meaningless, since it entails the same endless questioning, with no conclusion ever being reached as the first possibility.
The fourth, however, since it answers the postulation, based on scientific observation that all that exists in the known universe seems to have had some sort of "beginning" requires the answer that something, or someone, with no beginning started it all. Everything we see, or observe with other senses, shows signs of having had a "beginning" of some sort. This is why we ask, "How did this begin?" This idea that something, or someone, with no beginning, may seem to fly in the face of evidence that all we observe appears to show evidence of having some sort of beginning. Keep in mind, though, that these are all things that we can observe in some way, be it visually, by listening, or through some technilogical means.
This "somthing, or someone" cannot be observed through any means known to science, and so it is possible that comparison to what we are able to observe with what we are not able to observe, is unscientific at best. If this comparison is agreed to be unscientific, or illogical, then it becomes perfectly okay to postulate that this something/someone may have had no beginning. Once we make this postulation, questioning where he/she/it came from becomes moot. To me, once we postulate that there is something at the beginning of all else, it only makes sense that this is not just a something, but a someone, with intelligence. How does a "thing" with no beginning, unaltered for "eternity" (there really is no time as yet)
spontaneously begin causing things to happen, and exist? Add intelligence into the equation, and it becomes possible. If you get this far into the theory, the next question becomes, "Why?". The reason this question comes so easily to so many, is because we observe in the case of our own minds, that we usually do things for one reason or another. We concieve things before we make them happen, and we concieve for reasons that sometimes are plain to us, and sometimes are unclear. Even when the reasons are unclear, we still seek them (the acivities of serial killers comes to mind; it may seem, at first glance, that they kill for no reason, but we seek those reason's anyway), because we believe that intelligence does things for reasons. So, when we postulate that an inteligence caused our universe, that intelligence must have had a reason.
The vast majority of us define that something/someone as "God", "Jehovah", "The Great Spirit", "Allah", among many, many other names. These varying forms of belief in an intelligent creator, also teach varying levels of responsibility to that creator. One that almost all teach, is that we should be grateful. Another is that this intelligence knows more about how we should live than we do.
Once we've made it this far into the postulation, we have come to the point of accepting or rejecting our own capacity for self-determination. Most people don't even make it this far into it, because they have early on decided that they either do, or do not, accept the possibility that we may not be the best at determining our own futures. Having already made that decision, they either don't need to continue "proving" their postulation to themselves, because they are satisfied with the statement "God created all things", or they are of the mindset "I cannot subscribe to anyone telling me how to live", and choose not to pursue this line of reasoning, knowing it will end with, "I may have to answer to this 'God'".
We have already determined that in the first three scenarios, the question, "What came before...?", is meaningless no matter what you believe. In the fourth scenario, however, we have seen that meaning can be found, if, and only if, we are willing to accept certain conditions. Those not willing to accept those conditions, must render the final scenario unacceptable in their own minds, by calling it unscientific, which, in turn, renders the entire scenario's line of questioning "meaningless".
This is just my theory on why it is that those who believe in a creator do NOT find this question meaningless, and those who do not believe in a creator DO find it meaningless.
Edit: Now, how does the "before" being meaningless fit in here, if time began with the Big Bang? Simple. It's a semantic arguement from this point forward. "Before" is a word connoting that there is a passage of time in most cases. That is because if we use the word "before" in reference to anything except the Big Bang (or "the beginning of time"), we are using it in reference to occurences that take place in the mid-stream of time, where there are clearly "befores", and "afters". When we use the term "before" in reference to "before time", the word really doesn't work well given it's meaning. But what if we spoke of this "before" as "outside" instead? As in outside time. Those who subscribe to a creator who "started" it all, including time itself, speak of him as being timeless, with no beginning and no end. If this creator exists outside the bounds of time, it explains a lot. "Before" the Big Bang then becomes a description of all that lies outside the bounds of time (a pretty wild concept hard for a human mind to wrap itself around). What we are really asking when we say "what came before?" is "What caused the Big Bang?".
And that's not meaningless at all, since it doesn't require imagining a "before", but something far more difficult to explain. Unless it simply is, was, and always has been. Timeless.
Comments
So, in your first line, you have rejected Hawking.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on November 27th, 2006
No. And yes. See the edits, and you'll get it.
by Nulinvoid on November 30th, 2006
this is equally an argument for polytheism, as monotheism
by purplecows on October 15th, 2009