FINALLY, we see Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist who has a massive, world-wide following. He also is a prominent atheist who constantly ridicules belief in God as silly and irrational - which also drives much of his followers' praise. In this remarkable interview (linked below), Dawkins is pressed hard on his beliefs about the SOURCE and CAUSE of the BIG BANG event - and whether it and the universe that resulted even required a cause, much less and intelligent one, per the nothingness that physicists say preceded it (in the pre-material / pre-matter period before the BB), before the universe began. In this incredible interview, watch as Piers Morgan presses Dawkins hard on where he sees his contradictory logic and assertions that all biological life had interconnections along a specific, evolutionary, linked chain and timeline, yet then abandoning all reason by trusting physicists who insist, as illogical as it seems to be (and IS), that we SHOULDN'T likewise assume there existed a NECESSARY and connective CAUSE for the Big Bang that preceded it, claiming that isn't necessarily a reasonable question to even ask, because this would have been a pre-matter / pre-material state of NOTHINGNESS. But pressed exceptionally hard, shockingly, Dawkins finally admits that, although he personally doesn't see how something can come into existence without a cause, but that this does not mean its impossible - even if it seems irrational, even to himself. Repeatedly avoiding the implications of the idea that no cause was necessary for the Big Bang or universe. Nonetheless, Dawkins admits believing in such a absurd thing, noting that he's unqualified to weigh in on the matter, by repeatedly exclaiming, "I'm not a physicist!"
In the interview, Dawkins constantly passes the buck by stammering, and grimacing, clearly irritated, face flushed, as he has finally been called out of for what is an assumption with no proof, that defies all scientific observations, and is untestable by the scientific method (as the pre-Big Bang state preceded ALL time, space and physical matter / material), rational thinking, and common sense. Note that despite all of the scientific posturing, speculations, and wild theories, the scientific method and it's many associated high-tech tools can NOT do more than speculate about what preceded time and matter - because it only has the ability to measure the PHYSICAL! And it certainly cannot measure or test for the NON-physical NOTHINGNESS that physicists insist preceded the Big Bang. So, don't be fooled by confident sounding scientists or lengthy books filled with speculative theories, technical concepts, and scientific jargon - because there is NO scientific methodology or tools that can test for the pre-Big Bang state of nothingness. The reality is, non-theist scientists of all stripes hitch all of their theories of the universe's origins to Godless materialism / naturalism. Why? Because A) it's ALL they've got - and B) as their only alternative HAS to be that there was an intelligent Creator that existed outside of time, space and matter! And so, they refuse to go there, trying ever so hard to refute God as the universe's ultimate Source.
See the interview video - what a eye-opener it is! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuWRkRseF2c
BTW, why is it that non-theists are so obsessed with destroying and ridiculing belief in God? Is that RATIONAL? I mean, why do they care so much?
Clearly, Piers has been impressed and significantly influenced by the brilliant observations of Dr. Stephen Meyer - and rightly so!
A few important things should be considered, as we ponder the preceding nothingness that existed before the pre-Big Bang event and the universe's spectacular birth: The entire observable universe, of which the Earth is a very tiny part, contains matter in the form of stars, planets, and other objects scattered in space, such as particles of dust, molecules, protons, and electrons. But BEFORE the physical universe began, physicists say there was NOTHING - as even energy is not a “thing” that exists by itself, but is rather an attribute of matter (and also of electromagnetic radiation), which can manifest itself in different ways. Thus, energy can ONLY be observed and measured indirectly, through its effects on matter, that acquires, loses, or possesses it. (Source: Stephen Lower, Professor Emeritus (Simon Fraser U.)
According to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, no object with mass can travel as fast as the speed of light in empty space (in vacuum). So another definition of matter is anything that is subject to gravity and is either at rest or traveling slower than the speed of light in vacuum.
Final thoughts: So, science cannot measure or test any aspect of the PRE-Big Bang universe - because that was a PRE- state period of non-PHYSICAL existence / nothingness. And because only detectable physical things and processes are what the scientific method and all of its best tools are capable of testing and measuring. Thus, at best, science can only speculate about that previous state of nothingness. And so, a reasonable question concerning theories per the nothingness from which the Big Bang emerged should be, is it REASONABLE speculation - has the rest of all established science, per the scientific method, ever shown credible evidences that ANYTHING has ever existed or occurred that didn't come from or wasn't contingent upon some other previously existing things or already ongoing processes? And as it has NOT done or observed such phenomena, how can anyone logically conclude it possible that the Big Bang and the Universe could have emerged from a prior point in which NOTHING of material or matter yet existed, not even TIME itself? Many scientists try to fudge the issue of nothingness, seemingly alluding to it having having contained "something" unknown that pre-existed, or that eternally pre-existed, the Big Bang, whether through theories involving a string of eternal universes, etc. And lest we forget, the physicists who assert the emergence of a sophisticated universe from nothingness to be possible, ultimately cannot TEST, much less PROVE, their theories. Well, this means their theories about it, at best, ultimately equate to no more than mere professional opinions, no matter how scientific-SOUNDING their theories may seem. And MERE opinions, without clear evidence, are PROOF of absolutely nothing whatsoever! And yet, physicists and others who believe things without clear evidence, must only believe per their own brand of FAITH in unproven possibilities. But, faith in what, exactly?
So, WHAT exactly is NOTHING - is it SOME thing or is it NO thing? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uGNXncP1 ... ture=share
Philip