I have need of God -- I have no need of God

Stephen Hawking in his book "A Brief History of Time" states "But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" but if I understand him correctly and if you read closely his God he is describing was really only very much like a Dutch boy sticking his figure in the dam to stop a leak. His God was only required because the model couldn't describe xyz. So we needed "God" just to "wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off" magically but the rest he could describe with out God and once he was able to describe his model without God he asks why we need a creator at all.

I find his thinking very interesting. Why did he choose to even include God in this book. Do not all models that need correcting have the same train of thought. When Newton correctly mathematically described the motion of the planets with his gravity model did he state God was no longer needed? When Einstein further corrected Newtons laws to include relativity did he expel God?

You may argue the difference is Hawking is describing creation of the universe while Newton and Einstein are describing laws but I would argue it is no different. If we were to completely describe the universe without God (whether with or without what he calls the unified theory). Ie we have no holes that God needs to stick his figure in to hold the model together would this exclude the existence of God? If all Stephen Hawking cared about and was completely consumed by his science he would then have no need of God.

I would argue this would not exclude the existence of God and I would argue it actually points to there being a God. The God of the Bible is not really a hole plugger. He seems to not really care about our models and ideas but cares about people and salvation and truth. Truth being the key for this blog. I believe he wants us to discover truth which I believe including scientific truth. 

I also find in his book Stephen Hawking is trying to be a philosopher which he is not. His argument for this stance is that philosophy has not been able to keep up with scientific breakthrough and so scientists have to take over the role of philosopher. I find this a general trend of our time is that scientists (or science in general) are held up on high moral and influence and make comments in areas that they are not experts. Is this correct?

C.S. Lewis who I believe is a true philosopher and historian makes the following prediction in his book "The Discarded Image" "It is not impossible that our own Model will die a violent death, ruthlessly smashed by an unprovoked assault of new facts - unprovoked as the nova of 1572. But I think it is more likely to change when, and because, far-reaching changes in the mental temper of our descendant demand that it should. The new Model will not be set up without evidence, but the evidence will turn up when the inner need need for it becomes sufficiently great. It will be true evidence. But nature gives most of her evidence in answer to the questions we ask her. Here, as in the courts, the character of the evidence depends on the shape of the examination, and a good cross-examiner can do wonders. He will not indeed elicit falsehoods from an honest witness. But, in relation to the total truth in the witness's mind, the structure of the examination is like a stencil. It determines how much of that total truth will appear and what pattern it will suggest."