Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
Now the most basic problem with this and other such analogous claims is they always invoke something other than God as preceding Creation. In other words, they substitute some impersonal force for God; a force that could not have created itself. In Hawking's case that force is the so-called Law of Gravity.
Of course a series of logical questions following such an outlandish statement might be as follows:
If the Law of Gravity existed before the universe where did it come from?
If there is a Law there must a a Law Giver?
If gravity predated the universe why its predating? Would not spontaneous creation happen the instant the Law of Gravity "went into effect?" Or if gravity "existed" before the creation of the universe why was there a delay? Was something else needed as a catalyst, combining with gravity to cause the big bang? If there was a delay, why, and who or what decided when this "spontaneous creation" would take place after the Law of Gravity "took effect."
If I claim the Law of Gravity predates the creation of the universe and was the direct cause of its spontaneous creation that in no way precludes that God is the remote and first Cause, creating both gravity and matter and using the former to explode the latter into the mystery of time/space. If I create a work of art, say a painting, I would use specific means; brushes, paints of various types, a canvas, etc. Why do critics of a Creator God assume that God had to have created the universe directly rather than using some means––like His Word?
Why do these fools miseducated into imbecility expect us to take them seriously when they're so absorbed in the empirical sciences and the scientific method they refuse to do the most fundamental of reasoning?
Ignorant of history, philosophy and metaphysics Hawking is obviously oblivious of St. Thomas Aquinas' response to Aristotle's speculation that the universe is eternal. To paraphrase the Seraphic Doctor: Those who claim that if the universe is eternal it does not need a Creator do not understand what it means to be a Creator.
Apparently Hawking (and his God hating, atheist toadies in the media) can be found among "those" ignorant few. Fortunately, the great mass of humanity are not so divorced from common sense and blinded by the pride of their own learning that they reject the existence of what Aristotle called the first cause, the necessary Being, without which nothing could ever have existed.
No matter how Hawking tries to couch the argument he cannot deny the existence of the First Cause and not fall, ipso facto, into the madness of infinite regression, which, like Hawking's comments, have the force of a non-statement. The Armadillo is neither amused nor impressed by this poor man who has allowed his pride of learning to turn him into a shill for the absurd and the irrational.