Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

If you are an adamant person then even learning Arabic will not help you. Translation of Quran is sufficient to have the basic idea on what Quran is commanding. It’s only a matter of reading it with a neutral mind.

And anyone reading it with a neutral mind would see it for the bullshit it is.

If you say brain function IS consciousness then why brain is functioning at all? In other words, what is keeping brain to function? You know better than I do that behind every effect there is a cause.

That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.

Car needs a driver in order to perform its functions. Behind the functioning of car the cause is the driver’s intensions.

We're trying to correct that limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car

Today scientists and philosophers, whether they belong to theist or atheist schools of thoughts, agrees that within or outside the universe there is nothing so called “Nothingness”.

Wrong. Most scientists and philosophers would say that "outside the universe" is nonsensical to begin with.

Almost everyone now agrees that there is nothing in the universe, which comes out of “Nothingness” as “Nothingness” simply doesn’t exist.

No, they don't.

Now if there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?

That's a nonsensical question. Any answer would automatically make that entity a part of the universe.

Why there is a balance in the universe, why not a chaos?

Because the concept of balance is dependent upon the universe.

Things like Chance has least value scientifically, logically, rationally, and empirically in all aspects of human understanding. CHANCE sparkles mostly in the vicinity of human desires.

Which is why no one uses chance as an explanation for existence of universe.

Theist uses the word God and simplifies his task to explain this “No Nothingness”. However, atheist finds it hard to give explanation to this “No Nothingness” and come up with different theories and models. Like multiverse model, inflationary model, string theory, etc. but all these hypotheses are highly speculative scientifically.

Exactly. The theists go for immediate gratification and come up with whatever comes to their minds first and go with that. Atheists, in their search for truth, are not afraid of a little intellectual hardship.

Before atheist argued that universe exists from eternity, will exist up to eternity but scientific facts force him to accept that universe was not eternal, and will not be eternal.

No they haven't. All scientific facts have established is that the came into its current form from a singularity 13.77 billion years ago (a figure which, by the way, is missing from your quran).

Now atheist doesn’t argue against the origin of universe but in parallel he has no logical explanation on what caused this universe if there is no Super Intelligent Being, “God”.

And the theist has no logical explanation for god. Atleast we are intellectually honest.

Another thing, which astounds all scientists and philosophers, are the subjects of Grand Design and Supernatural Balance in the universe.

No it doesn't. Scientists and philosophers alike don't even acknowledge something like "supernatural balance". What the hell is that? And they certainly don't assume anything to be designed.

Universe is a place of order, balance, and symmetry.

No - order, balance and symmetry are properties of the universe.

Think of the earth if it moves only 1 cm towards or away from the sun, this short deviation from its path becomes a threat to life on earth.

IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT.

The farthest distance on earth's orbit from the sun is 152,098,232 kilometres.

The closest is 147,098,290 kilometres

That a variation of about 5 million kilometers. One centimeter either way would not make any difference.

Look at the human body how accurate and perfectly balanced functions are happening within it without our own incentives. Simply look at the function of genes and that alone gives you surprises after surprises.

You have evolution to thank for that - not god.

By words, one can deny the existence of God but no one can explain how this grand design and fine-tuning is running on its own.

Yeah they can. Open a science book every now and then. Its all in there.

It is a laughable joke for us if someone says his wristwatch caused by some desert as a matter of chance and it is running precisely by its own without the need of an operator. However, we don’t laugh when we say this humongous and intricate universe caused by itself as a matter of chance and it is running super precisely by its own.

Because the first one is known a-priori to be artificial. Whereas no agency with regards to the universe has been proven.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 164-
Al Quran

Bullshit.

Try to tackle with the following arguments:

First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)

Premise 1 - Unproven.
Premise 2 - Unproven
Conclusion - Even if the argument was true, it would only establish a cause - not that the cause is god.

Second Argument
We recognize that we ourselves are not made by ourselves but by something else; however, we as rational beings are certainly superior to the world of non-rational things[1]. This would not be so if that world were something that caused itself, because anything which relies only on itself for its subsistence is superior to anything that relies on something other than itself.[2] Hence that world is brought into existence by something else, a maker or ruler, and this we call God.
Abelard, Peter (1079-1142)

[1] - Invalid. Never been established
[2] - Invalid. Fallacy of equivocation.
Hence, the conclusion is invalid as well.

---

Thanks for the palate cleanser.

That's what you keep saying. And yet you have not provided any reason why 'generation' is better than 'representation'.

In what sense of the word do you mean "better"?

If we compare the generation/representation hypotheses (putting aside strict scientific criteria for the moment), I'd regard 'generation' hypothesis to be better because:

1. Its explanation of reality fits better with our current knowledge of it.
2. It does not invoke inexplicable factors - such as independent soul.
3. The current scientific facts support it.
4. It remains falsifiable.

Any reason why I should choose 'representation' over 'generation'?