bolder-dash writes:
He simply stated a fact,...
A fact? A fact??? What he stated is about as far from a fact as language allows.
well here we have two problems - one is that you don't understand Hawking's math. I don't either, but calling it "sophomore salad" won't make the equations no longer make sense to somebody with enough training and understanding to read them.
So you can wave your ignorance of advanced math as it pertains to space-time geometry around if you want, but don't expect a cookie.
So yes, it's a fact that the equations Hawking has put together do not require god, and do seem to do a good job explaining everything.
On the other hand, it's still not "proof" of non-existence (proving a negative being exceedingly difficult at the best of times) but it is proof (as long as he is correct) on non-requirement.
Now, if you wish to claim god did it anyway you can go ahead, but it won't change the facts.
You can dispute the facts, but you'll need a college degree and then some to get anywhere - not because they won't listen to people without one, but because people without one don't know the hell what they're talking about.
I know which path you'll take.