No he doesn't. I'm being VERY generous here by assuming the video didn't actually cut anything he said between his two things. So, his "claim" was this:
Something can come from nothing, if we can dispute what's meant by nothing.
That nice IF qualifier there makes the claim entirely logically valid. If we redefine "nothing" as something, then *drumroll* it's something. He uses poor word choices, which is why the priest laughs. I might laugh too in a similar situation because it does sound humorous. But only superficially.
"Nothing" is a philosophical / metaphysical construct. "Nothing" does not physically exist as far as we know. It might be a defensive method in our own heads in trying to make sense of the universe. And pretty much nothing else. Heh.
His claim there is entirely in the realm of philosophy, since he's talking about redefining the word. To mean something that's more correct, but highly un-intuitive: That there is always something, even with the appearance of nothing.
For example: You personally don't have any working knowledge of quantum mechanics, which you earlier in fact labeled as "false" because you didn't understand what was being said. To your mind, those effects are practically not there; You cannot feel, see, hear or taste them. In fact, it almost seems like you don't even believe in it.
But not even a vacuum is "nothingness."
You would need the context of the entire discussion to really tell anything about what he actually thinks. Which is what we don't have here. You posted two videos of highly edited content meant to skew attention to perceived mistakes. I'm certain he said more than just two damn sentences. You have been guilty of cherry picking and quote mining.
That being said: I am prepared to talk about the philosophical implications of "nothing." It's something VERY dear to me. And like i said, in standard cosmology, there was never something that could be labeled as "nothing." Dawkins knows this. He's not making any sort of scientific argument to begin with with this quote mined claim. It's an argument of philosophy and semantics. I suspect ONLY in attempt to simplify. And he was instantly vilified for it, unjustly.
Again: You simply do not have the capacity to understand what's actually being said by Dawkins. The fact that you specifically tried to use out of context character defamation videos confirms this.
-Did things for emphasis.
/E: I do need to add that he specifically says that there has got to be something, but that it seems more likely that this something is something extremely simple rather than a complex intelligent designer god. He actually says it in the first video. But he still gets laughed off.
Last edited:
