Peter Atkins is a curious fellow - obviously extremely smart, but very angry, and given to saying some daft things when it comes to the matter of God's existence.
This tendency was on full display when he was debating William Lane Craig. I recently watched the debate and just want to point out one of the clangers from Professor Atkins.
Atkins was presented with evidence of God's existence from the origin of the universe, (whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause.) Atkins' response was that the concept of cause and effect doesn't hold for the origin of the universe. If he really believes this then he can forget about any scientific exploration into the matter! Yet this is the very thing he accuses the theist of doing - killing off scientific enquiry! How can a scientist ever do anything without working from the basic premise that every effect has a cause?
It always amuses me that in debates about God it is the Christian who ends up defending common sense while the atheist defends what can only be described as weirdness! Precisely the opposite of the popular perception.
