Prominent Atheist scientist says no evidence could convince him that God exists

Define "something", "nothing" and "everything" first. If you don't, I can disprove that statement with one sentence.

I can't speak for all atheists but I know exactly the sort of thing would compel (not coerce) immediate conversion. Limbs growing back at Lourdes immediately after prayer for instance. And if I have a good idea what would work, along with many others, then it would be certain that an all-knowing God would too. Instead it appears in His silence He has to rely on faith from the credulous, the insistence of proselytizers and the claims of scripture.

And the logical argument for the notion that there was necessarily ever a time when there was absolutely nothing making up a natural reality is...

Why is it that nothing cannot create something, Cody?

About like in your original post huh? The difference is, my assumptions can be backed up with reason. You won’t even ATTEMPT to substantiate yours when asked. So I think I can rest my case in that alone.

If you were born in Israel, you’d be Jewish.
If you were born in India, you’d be Hindu.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be Muslim.
If you were born in Mexico, you’d be Catholic.
If you were born in China, you’d be Buddhist.

The only reason you are a fundamentalist, Christian Protestant is because of where you grew up, and that’s it! You’re beliefs are the result of indoctrination (brainwashing), not reason.

But we've never observed a state of absolute nothingness Cody, so that has nothing to do with it. If we're honest, we don't even know that a state of absolute nothingness is even possible.


So you believe that the laws of logic forbid it?

Cody, when nothing existed, did the laws of logic exist?

No, because I live in a universe bound by logic and natural law. But when nothing existed, Cody, did logic exist? When nothing existed, did physical laws exist?

Excellent question. Current answer: "something" can come from "nothing".

I googled "something from nothing quantum" and got plenty of links.

I'm not a physicist, so maybe I lack background; but the following explanation makes sense.
Everything in the Universe is either matter ("something" according to Cody™ ) or virtual matter ("nothing" according to Cody™ ).
Virtual matter can form matter. Can be googled.
Conclusion: Something can come from nothing, and together, they are everything.

No gods are needed in this picture.

Well that is just as stupid as when a religious person says that no evidence could convince him that God don`t exist.

If you are a scientist and you refuse to believe in the evidence than you are not a proper scientist. 

To shortcut what is usually a lengthy debate...

The discussion hinges on what "nothing" is. Scientists generally use the word to refer to empty space - a perfect vacuum. But there is still the quantum background. There is still spacetime itself. So the religious counter that "well that's not nothing. Where did the quantum background come from? Where did spacetime come from?"

And of course scientists are describing what is allowed under natural laws that the universe operates on, so the religious say "where did natural law come from then?"

So what the religious are truly talking about when they say "nothing" is a lack of absolutely everything, including existence itself. Which science can neither describe nor explain, since there is nothing to describe and nothing to explain.

And that's the point. What the religious person badly wants is to get the scientists/atheist into a position where they can't answer "what created everything", because then they can say "Aha! It was god! My belief can explain something that your science cannot! Checkmate!"

What they're missing is that, one, it's far from clear that a state of absolute non-existence has ever pertained, or that such a thing is even a coherent concept. So the answer may well be "existence was not created at all. Some form of existence has always existed."

And secondly, as I'm trying to point explain to Cody, if there ever was indeed a state of absolute non-existence, then by definition there could be no rules, no logic, no natural laws. Cody wants to claim that "it's obvious" that nothing cannot become something without any cause, that this idea violates our "common sense" or "logic".

What he's missing is that logic, natural law, common sense - ALL of these are wholly rooted in the universe - meaning they are rooted in existence as we know it. There is absolutely no reason why they should apply to a state of non-existence.

Cody wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to postulate a state in which there was absolutely nothing, a total lack of all existence... and then he wants to assert that common sense, logic, and the laws of cause and effect still apply to this non-existence.

That is an absolutely unsustainable argument. But that doesn't matter to Cody, because his only goal is to just go "See! These atheists/scientists believe things that make no sense! They're stupid! I'm obviously right!"

As is often the case with Cody, his argument cannot stand. But that doesn't matter, because he doesn't believe what he believes based on the arguments. The arguments are just an excuse for him to believe what he wants to believe for purely emotional reasons. And it's a rather poor excuse.