In my {always humble) opinion, you may have put an unintended spin on Hawking when you quoted him saying this:
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past...I take that to mean that it's "unsatisfactory" to have a problem with no solution. So they strive for further understanding. That's how science reacts to any problem. It's not necessary to assume a theological -- or rather, anti-theological -- intent on such curiosity.
LOL, Patrick, you so funny! "Strive for further understanding," indeed!!! Sometimes I think it's more the reverse idea: Strive to run away from the seemingly obvious because it's "unacceptable." :^)
It seems like Hawking is trying to avoid all the "easy" answers to how the Universe got a beginning, and is torturing himself with the "hard" answers -- such that it came into existence in imaginary time, in some way we do not understand. Indeed; how could we understand it, if all this occurs in imaginary time?
How is an imaginary time to be understood?
Just ask yourself this: Where do the laws of the Universe come from? How do you explain that?
And who wrote the law that says that knowledge gained by one discipline cannot inform us when we seek to understand knowledge gained by another discipline?
Whoever that is, I'd hate to see his or her driving record.
Back to work, Merry Christmastime.