Whether or not Stephen Hawking's position is philosophically sound, this response certainly isn't. The question is where does the universe come from? The auth

Whether or not Stephen Hawking's position is philosophically sound, this response certainly isn't. The question is where does the universe come from? The author's argument is that something can't come out of nothing. You can't use the laws of nature (like Hawking does) to explain where the universe came from because those are something. Therefor, the universe must have been created by God. Except that the next obvious question is "Well then, where did God come from? God is something, isn't he (she/it), and you just said that something can't come from nothing." Ah, but when you define God, you define God as something that didn't have to be created. But if one is allowed to define God as something that didn't need to be created, certainly, Stephen Hawking should be allowed to define the laws of nature as something that didn't have to be created as well. If your argument is that there had to be a "something" that got the universe moving, then I wouldn't disagree. But it's a pretty huge leap from, 'there is "something" that got the universe moving' to 'that something is an omnipotent, omniscient being.'