Expain to me how something coming from nothing is greater then human understanding. I have't read his book, but if Hawking is talking about how it may well be possible for the universe to create itself from nothing without the aid of God then how is that greater then human understanding, if science is starting to speculate on something coming from nothing?

I will acknowledge that we simply don't know enough about it and most of this is very theoretical and thus is on the fringes of human understanding and may remain that way for a long time. But why is it "greater" then human understandings?

I can basically say the sam thing to someone who believes that something can't come from nothing. In the end it's all just presumptions.

they believed in higher power, that was my point. I never said they believed in christian God

those were all Gods. And tooth fairy is not a God. So you cant comapre tooth fair to a god/gods. That list of yours only proves my point

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it (which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s)), so I gave a list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

Thor is unbelievable, but you said that no-one ever believed in the tooth fairy and that was the reason it wasn't valid. People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way then, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it (which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s)), so I gave a list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

Thor is unbelievable, but you said that no-one ever believed in the tooth fairy and that was the reason it wasn't valid. People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it*, so I gave a short list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

(*which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s))

I'll just add who created this gravity, time, mass and objects, even energy?  Who created nothingneess for something to come from? For there to be nothing didn't there have to be something first? I love science, but trying to use it to disprove religion just will not work, religion is a belief, not a fact. Hell who/what created the rules in wich nature operates. AS someone already said this adds nothing to the argument of who or what if anything created it all.

How many chemicals have science at one time said to be safe, only later to be proven harmful? How many times have science been used incorrectly and thrown out as fact? Science is just as bad as getting it wrong. Until science can start making advances without mistakes I will not take scietific "facts" as gospel. I prefer to wait till they can actually fully explain what they propose, until then its just theory, as so much religion is.

Religion isn't a theory, as it doesn't aim to prove anything, but assumes that what is says is fact. The beauty of science is that it corrects itself.