in actual fact, any of their hypotheses is as good as "god made the big bang".
I thought we'd agreed to keep religion out of this.
I strongly disagree with use of that "simple theory" requiring no thought - to try to counter complex coherent theories based on science, even if they're not complete.
No - "god made the big bang" isn't a good theory to argue against mainstream cosmology - which doesn't "care" who or what (if anything) made the big bang, as it's not observable, unprovable, provides no evidence that there's been any influence since, and really - it just doesn't matter. If people are making any hypothesis about "before", they're really just making stuff up. Hawking didn't do that (except maybe in jest).
If I've got the wrong end of the stick about what you said - then I apologise. I get frustrated when people argue that because we don't know everything, then a hypothesis based on nothing valid at all has equal merit. That's very common in all areas of pseudoscience vs science, from predicting earthquakes to quack remedies.