One has to ask why the notion of a creator is necessary to begin with; sure, we're lucky the universe exists as it does but on the other hand if we didn't need to breathe space travel would be a lot cheaper, so our current form is a limitation as much as an adaptation. And if this being does exist, prior to the universe as we know it, then where? In a higher dimension of some sort? In this context, the notion of a creator is a proxy for our lack of knowledge rather than a positive demonstrable.
As for multiple universes, try the number line. Consider how some functions can iterate endlessly upon themselves without falling into an oscillating or steady state. In abstract terms, what you have there is a one-dimensional universe populated by point beings whose only property is that of position, but which can yield exhaustively complex behavior nonetheless. All iterative functions 'exist' simultaneously for all permutations of their starting values whether or not anyone is actually calculating them at any given moment. You can expand this concept to include more than one dimension, or alternative geometries, or indeed any axiomatic formal system, with the one fundamental constraint being that completeness and consistency are mutually exclusive. We could do worse than consider our own existence from a similar perspective.
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.
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.
So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?
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.
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?
If it's just the way the universe works, I'm okay with that. But I'd at least like to know why the author thinks it's just the way the universe works.
The alternative is to just not write the article, and that's not a good way to get young people interested enough to go through decades of study. Science in popular media is about recruiting the next generation of scientists, even if that goal isn't explicit.
If it involves a bunch of complicated math and physics, then at least show me the crap I can't understand. If I have time I'll work on it, and if not at least I have a better idea of how someone got from point A to B.
It seems fairly well-developed with lots of interesting references.
You're making an implicit assumption; something exists, therefore it was created by an intelligent being. If God exists, this has to apply to Him as well, otherwise it's equally acceptable to say that whatever there was before the Big Bang is "eternal."
On a certain level, this is true. It depends on how you define 'god' as a concept.