I think he is wrong. (1) The universe is EVERYTHING that exists. If there are multiple bubbles, the bubbles are not universes. They are PARTS of the infinite universe. (2) Matter and energy must have existed throughout infinite time, because they cannot arise out of nothingness. (3) There can be no creator of matter and energy, because that "creator" must be made of matter and energy.

AFAIK, there is no experimental evidence for string theory.

I think he thinks to much about including everyone in his world view. That said I had no problem with what he was saying until he mentioned that the Universe is a mixture of Christianity and Buddhism. The Universe has no responsibility to make itself in our image or any image we can conceive of.

What dressing does he use on that word salad?

when some white haired guy floats down to earth on a fluffy white clous and starts throwing bolts of lightning in my direction ... then I will believe god exists ... then I only have to decide which one

I think he’s interesting and entertaining but he’s definitely playing to the house. He got the desired response but what he states as fact is merely opinion and does not prove what is unprovable.

I personally think he forgot to go and have a haircut.

Idle speculation. What he says is unknowable to the human mind. I also disagree with Hawking. It is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of any god. I choose to believe that no gods exist. I do not believe that anyone can present me with any evidence that my belief is untrue.

I think he sounds like he was raised by Buddhists.

Colorful fabrication.

Yes, his physics is sound, but he's still making the assumption that there must have been some sort of divine creator involved. Hawking once opined that all this doesn't rule out such an entity but it does limit where he might do His work. I remain unconvinced by this weak argument. I like this guy up to the point where he starts chucking unnecessary assumptions into this. Occam's Razor fail.

Based on his Analogy, proving the bubble in a bubble bath would demonstrate a creator. The "who created the creator" argument still holds in this circumstance.

The Universe is simple - its always been here - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.
Matter interacts at a constant rate - which we call time.

A curious, and slightly humorous, melding of Buddhism and Presbyterianism.  As he admits he has had two conflicting worldviews in his head since childhood and was apparently driven to close his cognative dissonance.

However, Hawking's claim to have "proven" that there is no possibility that God created the Universe, or even to deny the possibility for a creator to exist, if that is what he really said, is just plain silly. I don't think he ever claimed to have proven that God does not exit. However, he did say something similar in his final book, Brief Answers to Big Questions:

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

As anyone who has ever studied religion and theology knows, theists typically hold that God exists outside of time and space, and actually created time and space. The sad thing is that the claim that God can't exist because he "didn't have time" is the sort of thing that makes theists laugh at the theological ignorance of scientists. Dawkins does this sort of thing too, sometimes. If you want to rid theists of their superstitions, don't flaunt your ignorance of their beliefs. They are likely never to listen to you again.

Just because he argues that one tenet of Christianity is compatible with science doesn’t prove the validity of Christianity.

It's as valid as anything else I have ever heard come out of religion. Probably moreso, given that most of what comes out of religion is preposterous.

I just predicted it would be about string theory since that's what he's always trying to sell to us lol. I definitely got the vibe that he had to come up with that "melding" as a way to settle any confusion in his mind.

Ohferpetessake, more woo. Couldn't you volunteer at a soup kitchen, or work for a candidate, instead of this stuff?

Very interesting, not a proof of god at all

Maybe we're just an ant farm in a sixth grade science class.

Well, just read his book - PARALLEL WORLDS. Then you'll understand everything. (not)

Meh.

His viewpoint is every bit a valid as Elon Musk's and Neil deGrasse Tyson's proposition that our universe is a simulation created by a superior race.