I am glad you mention that, Lisa. It is not.
With the breaking teacups, Hawking describes reality on this side of the materialization process, and let it be for what it may indicate about the prior state of the universe without going there at all. To be most accurate, his teacup breaking points to our reality and Hawking just let it sit there for what it is.
The breaking of the egg and the breaking of the toy are truly meant to state something about the prior state of the universe, not our present state (which are then the omelet and the broken toy). The claim is that this is structurally correct, that there was a prior state with its own setup and the current state with its current setup as the result of the prior setup breaking. The claim includes the position that this must be structurally correct because we cannot get something from nothing.
So, without scientific evidence other than all matter in the universe showing us how there is a result indeed, the egg is the prior state and its breaking a fact. The prior setup is no longer intact.
The broken toy tells us how the prior state had an ability that is now gone forever.
--
Sometimes it is easier to follow the religious storyline.
Starting out with God in the prior state, God ended up breaking the prime condition of God godself.
The ability that God had to create creation ended with creation.
It does not mean that God is fully gone, but that God 2.0 has fewer abilities than God 1.0 had.
--
I must mention the following about structural thought:
Note how science is a bottom-up approach toward reality; we start with facts and evidence and try to understand the big picture.
In religion, we often find a top-down approach, starting with the big picture (most often envisioned as intact) and then bring this down to our level.
Never the twain should meet (but we are people and it is easy to get both structural kinds of thoughts mixed up).
If interested in big-picture structural thoughts, Lisa, then you may be interested in the idea of our living in two closed systems? A closed system describes that energy does not get lost. But I don't think anyone ever suggested we can have two of them at the same time. Naturally, this fits with the idea that the prior single closed system broke and that we now have two closed systems, fully following the laws of physics.
https://medium.com/@fred-rick/two-closed-systems-not-one-3d66da5b8dff
