With all due respect, George, you appear to have missed my point about frames of reference. As I recall (it has been many years since I read 'a brief history'...) Hawking's point was a -relatively- simple one. If time itself began with the big bang, the word 'before' is nonsensical.
This implies the (our) Universe is the only frame of reference. In the same way, the example 'north of the north pole' only works if we accept a 2 dimensional (Euclidean) frame of reference as being the only possible one.
As you point out yourself, it is possible to conceive another, larger (3 dimensional) frame of ref. By looking Up.
In the same way, it is possible to conceive a larger frame of ref. than our Universe, which could exist independently of our parochial big bang; as in the example of universes being created within black holes.
But wait!
Your idea of 'looking up' has given me a thought...
If I look down (whilst standing directly over the North Pole, with one eye shut), I notice my toes are in front of me. This means my toes must be 'south' of 'me'.
Therefore my heels must logically be 'north' of my toes.
Therefore it must be possible to look north, while standing at the north pole.
All one needs to do, is spread one's legs slightly, bend over and place one's head between one's knees.
Coincidentally, this is the posture I would be inclined to adopt, if David asks me where 'east' is, outside our galaxy.
Bushbasher's answer was more succinct.
Dan, in reply to your question, I have always relied on the ethic of reciprocity (golden rule).
I would suggest 'evil' could be defined as utter selfishness; the evil person is one who feels no sympathy, compassion or empathy for anyone but him/her self. Only their own personal gratification counts.
Strangely, I was actually thinking of psychopaths when I wrote that, not free trade finance capitalists...

Grim,
There is no point in going round and round. I am sorry I could not express myself more clearly about Einstein‘s model of space-time (as a four-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold) without any embedding into a higher dimensional something, that would make physical sense. Maybe one day physicists will suggest a model that would somehow rehabilitate Kant ‘s idea of an absolute time (and absolute space) which, you seem to be suggesting, runs independently of our space-time - though I very much doubt it . Until then let us just accept what contemporary mathematical physicists are suggesting, instead of speculating on popularised, hence necessarily oversimplified, explanations of what they work on.

As I mentioned before, there might be some other “time” in some metaphysical or theological meaning of the word, but that is a different question. So let me repeat: we have drifted too far - the controversy about how to understand Einstein and Hawking is irrelevant to a theist-atheist debate.

Grim,
I am still trying to tease out the comment you made. You said that many kids die every day due to poverty. Then you said that you would prefer if such a God, presumably one who allowed for such things on his watch, didn’t exist.

It seems you are accusing God of being immoral. So I asked what was the basis of your morality. And you said reciprocity, treating others the way you wish to be treated. So then the question becomes why should this principle be accepted?

I think it is a good principle. But others may not. They might not want to treat you the way they expect to be treated. So I ask you what is the basis of your morality. I can see your guiding principle, that is, reciprocity. And consequently selfishness is an evil. However, on what basis do we accept this as true and morally binding? Is it anything more than an emotional preference?

If there is no God, and everything is really just atoms banging around, why should it matter which way the atoms bang?

Dan, I like the principle of reciprocity because for me, it has always worked. It works in relationships (admittedly, I am neither a masochist or sadist, cases which could confuse the issue) it works within my family, and I am personally quite certain the world would be a better place with a more universal acceptance of it.
As I have indicated in other posts and an article, I like to think Jesus did exist, and existed as a real person. As such, he was a helluva bloke, with courage to burn.
He saw a simple formula for people to get along with each other, and deliberately sacrificed his life to get the message across.
I think he deliberately set himself up as a Messiah, knowing that was the only way his words would be accepted.
Personally, I try to treat everyone with courtesy, not for a better afterlife, but for a better life.

Actually, now that I've been dragged back to this thread, I have to say I'm mystified by George.
As far as I can make out, George believes in God. He doesn't seem to agree with Sagan's contention that the 'universe is all there is..."
but on the other hand he has argued forcefully that it is.
Where does your God live, George? Do you believe he/she/it was born in the big bang?
If not, we must be back at 'before the big bang', mustn't we?
If God existed before the big bang, why not other universes?

Grim,
>>Where does your God live, George?<<
Apart from the fact that I do not "have" a God, you cannot ask "where" (meaning where in space) about an Existence that by its very definition is independent of the space-time of our - or any other if such exist - universe.

>>If God existed before the big bang, why not other universes?<<
For the same reason you cannot ask "before" (a relation measured in time) about the Divine. Or - for that matter - about other universes with their own space-time unrelated to ours: they might or might not co-exist with our universe, no relation "before" or "after" making sense, unless you want to resurrect Kant's notions of an absolute time (and space) existing independent of the (material) observer.

[I believe that the Ultimate Reality, the Divine, “is“ God who is a person - called God, YHWH, Allah - in the same sense that I believe that elementary particles “are“ Hilbert spaces: in both cases this is the best way (available to contemporary Western culture) to understand these abstract entities, although neither a personal God nor Hilbert spaces are comprehensible/acceptable to everybody as corresponding to something in reality.]

As I said before, it is very hard for us to think of an Existence that is not only invisible to science, but also independent of space-time that is “wired into our brains”, i.e. intrinsically connected with how we perceive the outside world.