This is really an interesting excerpt from a book that Stephen Hawking wrote. He is a brilliant physicist who is also an atheist. The title of this article is Why God did not create the universe." It's really interesting to read this entire article and find that Dr. Hawking provides absolutely no scientific evidence to back the statement presented in the title. Instead, what we are treated to are wandering philosophical statements that aren't borne out of scientific facts, but, rather, out of Dr. Hawking's personal viewpoint that there is no God. He states in the article that, ... "today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist." Other than the low yield observational piece of science of there being other solar systems in the universe, there is no scientific information in that formational statement that leads to Dr. Hawking's conclusion that the universe doesn't need a God in order to be here. Maybe the presence of other planets in other solar systems means life is present somewhere else, but I will take the other philosophical (NOT scientific) viewpoint that, despite astrophysicists' best efforts, there is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe besides here; therefore, the conclusion that earth and its solar system is uniquely designed to maintain life is a reasonable philosophical conclusion that is supported by more factual evidence than Dr. Hawking's position. He also states, "Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception." That is very true, which any scientist would agree, but then he follows that, later in the article, with the statement, "As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing." Which "advances?" Which advances have allowed scientists to refute the 1st Law of Thermodynamics? Again, he presents absolutely no scientific basis for that statement. Although that statement does support his position of a Godless universe, it a faith-based statement (based upon his disbelief) rather than a scientific one. All of the stuff in the universe had to come from somewhere, the 1st Law mandates that, and no mathematical sleight of hand can alter the scientific fact that, if you think everything is here accidentally, something had to create the energy or the matter - the "stuff" - in the first place, or else the big bang wouldn't have been able to create the universe.