None of this addresses the OP's point. You stated your opinion that deity was formed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge (the popular "God of the Gaps" theory), your opinion that one who professes belief in a deity harbors the burden of proof (assuming that that person is trying to prove something to you...), and your opinion that number lines exist (?).
These are all valid opinions if you want to hold them, but they don't address the OP's point. This article is entitled "Why God Did Not Create the Universe". So, how does the idea that there are reliable laws that govern the operation of our universe show why "God did not create the universe"? What about the idea that an astonishing number of randomly lucky and successful permutations occurred in the correct succession out of an infinite number of wrong potential permutations, how does that demonstrate the article's title?
Evolution is the same way; it's all well and good, but none of it explains _why_ species change, just _how_. Learning how species change is all well and good too, but it is not useful in the debate over the existence of god(s). I wish the creationist v. evolutionist group would just accept that already.
I think it all depends on the perspective you take. A religious person would read this article and spend it marveling at how anyone can believe that God does not exist, even when presented with evidence of all the effort and precision necessary to form a world like ours from an infinite expanse of random blackness, where the potential that things would randomly occur so correctly as to create intelligent humans and a hospitable environment for them is essentially as close to nil as possible.
All the article says is this; If I went into a casino picked a number on a roulette wheel and won straight away, you would be amazed. If I then did it a second & third time in succession, you would be incredulous. You might wonder if I was cheating the system or had some strange or divine powers.
However, if you then found out I had been going into a different casino only betting 3 times and walking away every hour of my life you would understand that it was just by chance that you happened to be there on the day that I won three times in a row. There is nothing to explain - no divine powers.
This is what Hawkings is arguing for the multiverse. Because there are many possible universes, the fact that ours has all the right qualities to sustain life is an inevitability. It's inevitable that one would be created and because we exist, we must inhabit one.
The problem is that one has to be convinced that multiple universes (which by definition can't be observed) exist. Which means rejecting the idea of one (potentially empirically observable) unknown entity [a creator or "god"] only to replace it with the idea of an infinite number of universes which however can never be observed…
So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?
My comments above are certainly inductive rather than empirical in nature. I think the potential (or lack of same) for empirical observation is about the same; I can imagine being transported to 'other dimensions' just as I can imagine being with miraculous powers of creation and destruction.
However, I disagree with your implied argument that one is unnecessarily multiplying entities by postulating multiple universes rather than the philosophically more economical single being. When people postulate a God, they usually ascribe infinite power and potential to that being. By contrast, the idea of multiple universes assumes that they are individually finite and have fundamental limitations, which is in line with empirical experience.
Likewise we could postulate a more realistic and limited creator-god, one which might even be empirical observable, either directly or indirect. The point being that we can only know which features a deity actually has after one has been observed in action.
Given available evidence at least some postulated deities have become increasingly unlikely, but this is not the case of all. Some might have merit if only they where actual observed from time to time.
Imagine someone was able to calculate where the ball will fall with only a glance of the roulette wheel…
Or someone who is able to go from casino to casino every hour of his life? Without requiring a full night of sleep and somehow always have enough cash with him to travel from casino to casino and always play 3 times at roulette?
These are all valid opinions if you want to hold them, but they don't address the OP's point. This article is entitled "Why God Did Not Create the Universe". So, how does the idea that there are reliable laws that govern the operation of our universe show why "God did not create the universe"? What about the idea that an astonishing number of randomly lucky and successful permutations occurred in the correct succession out of an infinite number of wrong potential permutations, how does that demonstrate the article's title?
Evolution is the same way; it's all well and good, but none of it explains _why_ species change, just _how_. Learning how species change is all well and good too, but it is not useful in the debate over the existence of god(s). I wish the creationist v. evolutionist group would just accept that already.
I think it all depends on the perspective you take. A religious person would read this article and spend it marveling at how anyone can believe that God does not exist, even when presented with evidence of all the effort and precision necessary to form a world like ours from an infinite expanse of random blackness, where the potential that things would randomly occur so correctly as to create intelligent humans and a hospitable environment for them is essentially as close to nil as possible.