Many religious people have tried to bolster their argument for the existence of God using the "God of the Gaps" argument.
In very simple terms this goes: "We may know how lots of things have come about, but it's those things we can't explain which demonstrate that God exists. In fact they force us to believe in God because there is not other coherent explanation".
This is, to put it mildly, a daft argument.
In the first place it is inevitably self-defeating. Every time we learn, or think we've learnt something about life, the universe and everything - and this is a continuing process - the "God slaggers" get all excited and claim that the existence of God has been disproved. This may be (i.e. is) an equally irrational argument, but they do it anyway.
The second reason is because it totally underestimates what and who God (at least as envisaged in Judaism, Islam and Christianity) actually is.
It's like arguing that the being who created everything is now reduced to a walk-on part when nobody else can think of anything to say.
It looks very much as though Hawkings has become the victim of his own reputation and has tried to use the "God of the Gaps" argument to support the "God slagging" position instead of realising that what doesn't work as proof that God exists doesn't work as proof that God doesn't exist, either.
IF God, as depicted in Judaism, Islam and Christianity really exists then He has always existed.
Even if the big bang theory is correct, God already existed.
If there was indeed an incredibly dense "ball" of matter which exploded and became all the universes we know about, God already existed.
Many "God Slaggers" seem to think that if they make enough sarcastic comments about the concept of a God who created everything that has a "before" then that replaces the need for a genuinely rational debate.
And that if they "close" enough "gaps" they can shut out the possibility of the existence of God.
Of course they are entitled to hold those beliefs, if it gives them a sense of security and comfort. But what's the point of pretending it has any intellectual validity?
We might just as well start believing in flying teapots and spaghetti monsters!