Richard Dawkins rarely debates theists. Now we know why. It’s one thing to make claims in a book. It’s another thing to make absolutist and unsubstantiated claims when there’s someone there to question what you’ve just said.
Such a debate took place between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. It did not go well for Dawkins. Dawkins is a good writer and speaks very well, but neither of these attributes can hide some of the absurdities that come out of his mouth. The naked emperor gains a false sense of superiority as long as he surrounds himself with people who want his favor by always agreeing with him no matter how absurd.
One of the first thing students learn in science class is that something does not arise from nothing. In fact, something does not even arise from some other things. For a long time, alchemists tried to turn lead into gold. At least the alchemists had the lead to start with. But, alas, they couldn’t turn lead into gold.
“For hundreds of years alchemists toiled in their laboratories to produce a mythical substance known as the philosopher’s stone. The supposedly dense, waxy, red material was said to enable the process that has become synonymous with alchemy — chrysopoeia, the metamorphosis, or transmutation, of base metals such as lead into gold.” (Source)
Fortunately, for us and science, some alchemists, seeing the folly of their pseudoscience, became chemists. For example, “Irish-born scientist Robert Boyle, credited as one of the founders of modern chemistry; pioneering Swiss-born physician Paracelsus; and English physicist Isaac Newton” laid the groundwork for our modern world. And by the way, Boyle and Newton were Christians.
Check out this related article: “Islam, Christianity, Atheism, and the Origin of Science.”
While a number of brilliant alchemists became great scientists, we can’t say the same thing about some evolutionists who continue to argue that something can arise out of nothing, a type of biological alchemy. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins is one of them.
“Of course, it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense does not allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.”
Having been challenged on the something from nothing claim that only physicists can understand but can’t demonstrate scientifically, Dawkins adds to the confusion by proposing a “primeval simplicity” for the origin of the universe. But in the end, Dawkins continues to claim that the cosmos arose “literally” from “nothing.”
At around 1:48 in the video below the audience reacts to Dawkins when he says this:
“You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very, very simple.”
At this point in the debate, the audience laughs because the word “simple” has a double meaning, one for Dawkins and one for the audience. For Dawkins, “simple” means “basic.” For the audience, “simple” means “simple minded.”
Dawkins then asks, “Why is that funny?”
Cardinal George Pell responds, “I think it’s a bit funny if you’re trying to define nothing.”
Science has become mysticism. It’s akin to the New Age nonsense of “the sound of one hand clapping.”
How many times have you heard atheists argue that they can’t believe in an invisible God? But it’s OK for atheists to argue that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing.