"...the closer our scientists get to a description of the Big Bang, the closer they come to concluding that God did it."
Uh, no. They don't. And Hawking doesn't conclude that God did it. He's just using colorful language.
Agreed, and that conclusion wouldn't belong in a scientific lecture, either. I only said that his use of that question about God indicates that a synthesis of scientific explanation for post-Big Bang events, with a belief in God as the pre-Big Bang mover, is something that human scientists should ponder.
Large and difficult philosophical issues are often addressed initially with light-hearted humor. I believe that at age 65, Hawking has come to the realization that talking about God and science in the same lecture, even in the same paragraph, is entirely acceptable, and I think he does a service to his listeners by challenging them to think about God even as they think about the science of the beginning of the universe.
> Uh, no. They don't. And Hawking doesn't conclude that God did it. He's just using colorful language.
Perhaps my statement would have been more clear like this:
"...the closer our scientists get to a description of the Big Bang, the closer they come to realizing that our science stops at the Big Bang, and that on the other side lies belief. Atheists will conclude that the Big Bang happened spontaneously and without precursor; those who believe in God will find that science does not conflict with their belief."
Hence, because science cannot reach to the "time before" the Big Bang, scientists will be free to conclude that only a supernatural cause fits the description. I personally believe that a majority of them will eventually do so, as soon as it is "allowable" without being censured. Hawking does a good service by opening up the discussion, even if he does so with tongue in cheek.