I can feel your anger

[Jackalope]

To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it. He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

It's quite possible that you lack the background to fully grasp the argument. That's not a criticism - as I myself do not. Half of the stuff he says goes over my head, the other half goes WAY over my head.

No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics. And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

I doubt I would have to look very hard to find other theoretical physicists that disagree with him on at least minor points, if not major ones.

I am not a believer, despite many may consider I am, I just play devil's advocate.

I don't think you are, I have a problem with the approach you chose to take early on (which, once you've been here for awhile, you'll see is reminiscent of the lines that is taken by a fair number of trolls that drop by).

Probably the biggest issue I have is some atheists seem to consider they possess the ability to assess whether a 'creator' is an actual option. I see no reason to believe this to be true, and even more strangely science is a common used warcry used to discount a creator.

Look, if someone were to present a novel argument for a creator, I'd do my best to evaluate it as objectively as I'm capable of doing. Haven't seen a new argument in a long, long time.

I can understand why you require the definition of a god, however, the issue with this is it presupposes that a creator must be knowable, for if it is unknowable it cannot exist.

I would not say that. I would say if it's unknowable, it's unknowable - and if it's unobservable the truth value of it's existence is unknowable. I recognize that I can't investigate every claim, and so must pick my battles. I choose to take those seriously that can be examined empirically and/or via deduction. For the rest, I take a skeptical position - which is to say that I do not necessarily consider them impossible, unless they are demonstrably so.

For all intents and purposes, unknowable may equate to being rendered without any purpose, however, this does not discount it by virtue of being unknowable. This is a reason why the atheist position baffles me.

I believe that part of the problem here is a difference in definitions. As customarily used in these circles, "atheist" only means an absence of belief in god. It does not necessarily mean that god does not exist (strong/gnostic atheism). It seems to me that the more common position is that one does not know, and as a result, does not have belief (weak/agnostic atheism). There are other positions.

Personally, I could take either the gnostic or agnostic position, depending on the definition of god and the attributes asserted for same. Absent such, I consider myself agnostic on the issue.