Tiger Tim. I read you clearly, but thank you for checking up on me. Like every one, Hawking only knows what he knows. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. Here he has made an assertion based upon what he does not know. It is wonderful that you think him the one person who knows the unknowable. That must be comforting for you, like religion.
Alphatrigger has captured the subtlety of my original remark. Aside from Mickey taking Alpha's statement to remind all what science seeks, Alpha never says that Hawking sought to prove or to disprove God. Nor did he suggest utilizing science to disprove or even to prove. But it is good to know the limits of science.
Again you're misreading me, and I don't think you understand the philosophy of science as well as you imagine.
Your assertion that "Here he has made an assertion based upon what he does not know." is as unfalsifiable as Hawking's. And considerably less interesting.
I do not think that it is controversial—indeed St Thomas Aquinas actually said as much—that to understand the Creator one must understand what is Created. It is unquestionable that Hawking, more than most of us, has a profound understand of the Creation. I think that qualifies him to have an opinion on the Creator, and because of his knowledge it is most certainly an interesting one.
In any case, I have had the displeasure to read many people make similar comments. I am supremely doubtful that they have the capability of understanding Hawking's scientific work, so I am doubtful of the claim that they find it more interesting than his theological thoughts.