Read/re-read the article. Or at least the title. He's not speculating that God might exist, he's saying he understands the sentiments that lead people to feel that way, while the book goes on with why he says they're wrong.

>He's not speculating that God might exist...

I understand that. I just don't understand why he feels the need to start making these unscientific speculations about whether God does or does exist or whether aliens do or don't exist.

With the controversy that Britains other leading scientific mind Richard Dawkins generates, Hawking is under increased pressure from journalists to define his stance on some of the more 'media friendly' topics such as aliens, gods, etc.

I personally think it's unfortunate that the publicity about his book is almost entirely focused on 'Hawking doesn't believe in god' instead of areas such as his improved thought process on the unified field theory.

His PR team have already spun this as Hawking throwing down the gauntlet to religion, gleefully canvassing outrage and outright denial from Rabbis and Bishops.

Wiser theologians should take a step back, bring out that age old trick, and inquire "ah... but who created gravity?"

And who created the creator?

The problem with an infinite regress is that it's, um, infinite.

It sounds like Hawking is trying to refute the claim that everything that exists must have a creator. That's the claim which allows the snooty "who created gravity" response, and also leads to the self-defeating infinite regress. Whether you believe in a creator or not, you're better off without that argument.

You don't fool me. It's turtles all the way down!

I like turtles!

It's not my argument. It's the god-of-the-gaps argument, hitherto to be found sitting lazily on that rather awesome gap called the big-bang, that Hawking is deftly refuting in his book. I'm just noting, with minor repulsion, the cheap tricks that his publisher seems to have used to turn this non-argument into an argument.

Downvoters: why?