I'd disagree on a couple of points.

1 - while claims have been made for a while they've been disconnected, there have been gaps in some areas, and it hasn't really been via a channel with potentially broader public perception.  With his books and cultural presence - the guy was on The Simpsons! - Hawking saying this is far more likely to get more coverage and he's saying it in terms of bringing together various theories to be a more definitive - we're now absolutely sure no creator is needed - manner (so far as I can gather from the blurb)

2 - as I said religious fundamentalism is on the rise, and in this climate a prominant scientist making this claim (although I'd note he's saying no God is required, not that one doesn't exist, so far as I understand his wording) is news because it's almost certainly going to have impact.  A number of key figures from science are pushing back hard currently in this area - and therefore in this context this is clearly news.

But I agree, this isn't the first, OMIGOD he say's the Universe could come into existence without a God statement made ever.  But I'd say in the current climate its news for the reasons above.

If the God of the Abrahamic faiths is a creator who is ultimately responsible for why there is something and not nothing how does the the lack of need for such a creator not impact on the supposed necessity of his existance?

Also, how has Hawkings 'missed the point'? I thought his only point was to try to explain the origin of the universe as best he can without forming any personal bias as all good scientists do?

The hypothesis of the existence of dark-energy, required for the current popular big-bang model, is about the same level as suggesting God has some sort of input. Both exist for the purpose of explaining what doesn't quite make sense. As good of an argument that it may sound right now, fifty years from now discoveries could potentially be made that disprove the Big Bang theory. 

A few years ago, for example, a galaxy as mature as the milky way, and with 8 times the mass, was discovered 13 billion lightyears away (by our current method of measurement), in other words, we are seeing the image of a galaxy from 13 billion years ago. The age of the universe, according to the Big Bang model, is only a few hundred million years older than that, and that was before galaxies like this one should exist. 

In addition, the method which has been traditionally used to measure the distance of objects is flawed. Distance for the last little bit of human history has been measured using the red shift; that is, the more distance an object had, the greater the shift towards the red spectrum of light (which is a lower frequency). The assumption is that the redshift is created by a sort of doppler effect (when a car wizzes by, you can hear the change in the sound frequency, this is because the frequency of the sound waves changes based on the cars location and speed in moving towards and away from you). This assumption of the doppler effect has a lot of evidence going against it, especially considering that celestial objects that are attached together have two different redshifts which would suggest far greater distances. There are other examples of factors which could cause a redshift, and this includes the Compton effect, which would be that the redshift is caused by the bending of light around particles; this would also explain how two attached celestial objects can have two very different red shifts. The evidence collected to support the Big Bang model, is dependent on the redshift existing solely as the result of the doppler effect.

I am not attempting to prove the existence of a creator; actually, if the evidence supporting the big bang theory is false, then the steady state model has more weight to support it. A steady state universe implies no creator, or event of creation; a more friendly theory for true atheists. 

What I am suggesting is not to believe everything you hear about cosmology. Our knowledge of the celestial realm is still very primitive. Theories are changing very rapidly, and the Big Bang model is not the only viable model, just the most popular one because it meshes well enough with Western tradition of a God who created the universe; it is more familiar and easier to swallow than to say there was no beginning, and there will be no end, no first and no last.

I am also not suggesting no divine powers, or greater powers exist. We don't know the extent of intelligent forces in the universe. As far as I'm concerned, it's still all a mystery, and as I haven't put my faith in religion, I won't put my faith in philosophical/pseudo-scientific models from humans with a limited perspective. Remember, there were periods in history when the thought of a world that wasn't flat was ludicrous; even after the Roman period where they were certain that the world was round, and already had predicted its width based on the measure of objects travelling over the horizon. 

You can admire our scientists for coming up with such great theories, as the old great thinkers of many different eras. I just suggest not to throw your faith in them just because the idea sounds like a good one.

Theoretical evidence is qualified as such because it isn't really evidence.

Theortectical evidence is the equivlent of my PSP being gone and my using that as proof that someone stole my PSP.

It just seems like the most likely explination to me.  No real evidence... it's just... you know something is happening.  That's the theoretical evidence, and your reasoning why is the theory.  In this case multiple universes.

There has been lots of very strong theoretical evidence for all kinds of things that never really existed, things like Ether, global cooling (actual evidence there too even) etc.

You could use the same theoretical evidence used for different dimensions and instead apply that information as proof of many other different theories.

The current mood? I believe that's always been the "mood." And the big news (as in you're an idiot if you didn't expect this outcome) that I was talking about is Hawking's beliefs. So, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone is all I'm saying. Not that he is right or wrong, just the fact that Hawking sides with physics. But go ahead, make a bigger deal out of this then it is.

I'm guessing it's not that Hawking missed the point, but the people like Manus and reporters who are representing the work are missing the point, but regardless the point has been clearly missed... which i'm guessing is a point you are missign as well.

The point being a very simple and basic one...

One could say that putting extremely flammable liquids in an area can cause a fire without man's intereference because of the nature of the liquid it would catch fire spontaniously on it's own.

Such a question ignores how the liquid was created and how it got there in the first place.

Or even by saying an electric cucu clock doesn't need people because the bird will pop out without human interaction.  God didn't force the bird to pop out, the bird popped out via a mechanism nobody really asked though, what created the clock.

Due to gravity there is no need for god to cause the big bang out of the compression that first caused it... but what does that really mean?

The mistake people make is... universe doesn't = reality.

It still changes nothing to scientific people of faith, simply "If god created the world, he doesn't mess with it's own laws."

It seems to me that Hawking is arguing (or at least proposing) that the creation of the universe is simply an unavoidable event which had to come into being and therefore was not necessarily created by some kind of intervention.

Now I won't pretend to be able to explain exactly how this can happen or even that it did but I don't understand how certain people seem to think that it is impossible for the universe to, for lack of a better expression, 'create itself'. If something had to be a prime mover, why not the laws of physics? The problem I have with the idea of a creator is that it doesn't help to resolve anything at all, it simply pushes back the first mover an extra step as we are then left with the issue of who created the creator? If we have to start somewhere, why not start with something we can observe and measure as opposed to some metaphysical entity of which there is no experience of?

It's been known for a long time that Stephen Hawking supports the weak anthropic principle. In fact, he spent a good part of a chapter on it in a brief history of time. He's also expressed his view that the universe doesn't need God to exist before.

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