Hi there RUNNER...

Thanks for that my friend, I'll have a bit of a read of the citation you've sent me.

This post is off topic but for the personal benefit of runner's general education about science:
runner, you said "The laws of physics obviously required a Lawmaker. Thinkabit more."

Any given law of physics does have a Lawmaker but its not the god(s), it is the person/people who first enunciate the law. Eg: Einstein field equations where made by Einstein*.

It is a very common misconception/mistake (even among people with STEM backgrounds) to say that the universe is governed by the "Laws of Physics". The universe just is what it is and just does what is does, it doesn't need to consult the Laws of Physics to determine how it should act nor do the laws command it to act the way it does.

Instead, the laws of physics are mankind's best description, usually expressed in maths, of how some aspect of the universe will appear to be or to act when it is measured/observed. The laws are based on the accumulation of data gained from our previous observations and from logical/mathematical reasoning applied to the data. Certain fundamental philosophical assumptions are taken when making this descriptions: such as for example, 1) that the bit of the universe we observe is potentially understandable to us (ie: our intelligence can make sensible descriptions of what we see), 2) the laws are uniform throughout the universe, eg: the laws apply here on earth equally as on a planet in a distant galaxy, 3) The a laws are falsifiable- in that they are descriptions which could potentially be proven false by some direct or indirect observation (eg: Newton's law of gravity is falsifiable and indeed was proven false by observations such anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury). These are just some example assumptions, but there are others as well.

--continued below--

--from above--

To help ground the difference between how the universe just "is" and its behaviours just "are" in contrast to our excepted behaviour according to the man-made "Laws of Physics" I'll given an example:
When an electron gets "hit" by a photon the electron doesn't think to itself and say, "I've got to obey the laws of physics" so it whips out a calculator and solves the equations of quantum electrodynamics and moves accordingly. No, instead it just interacts with the photon just as it is in it nature to.
However, when a human observes this electron/photon interaction the best (most accurate) description of what will most likely happen and indeed what actually happens (to the limits of the precision our current measuring equipment) is given by a solution to the equations of quantum electrodynamics.

[*Actually it wasn't all just Einstein, he worked in constant communication with others who had and were developing the maths and general concepts- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute]

Did anyone read his book A Brief History of Time, and understand it. His last interview before he died said Humans should leave earth within 100 years, where Stephen? And that time was always there and No Big Bang.

I felt sorry for him, but if he didn't have this disability would he have got that famous. I do not in anyway diminish his thoughts on Astra Physics. But leaving Earth. We won't be able too, our natural Physics and Natural laws of the Universe is not conducive to us traveling even to Mars. The natural laws has saved us and that we are too far away for us to travel in one life time, considering light from far off stars takes thousands of years to reach us. Extraterrestrials, if they are around they are already here or already come and gone. Space is a very dangerous place and distance between planetary systems is so far, in away protects our world as it does others, we can not introduce unknown dangerous bacteria or virus'.

Slight correction to my post above:
The third example I give as a fundamental assumption, ie: "3) The laws are falsifiable- in that they are descriptions which could potentially be proven false by some direct or indirect observation", is more properly a requirement and not an assumption. If a proposed law is not-falsifiable then if can never be considered a law; we don't assume that it is falsifiable, it MUST be falsifiable.

Here are a few links that may be of some interest:

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_hawking.html

And -

http://techwelkin.com/life-and-achievements-of-stephen-hawking

And -

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/stephen-hawking-a-man-of-mind-boggling-achievements-and-defiance-1.713053