Pleasure and Joy

[Harris]

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

A thief sees every other person with the eyes of a thief only.

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.

Is it then correct then energy is the self-consciousness? Perhaps, our food is our self-consciousness!

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

Congratulations!

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

So, what is your logical reasoning for being Nonsensical outside the universe?

[quoteAlmost 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.[/quote]

Who don’t agree?

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.

Here we are talking about the origin of Universe itself, not about its components.

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

Because the concept of balance is dependent upon the universe.

So, on what the universe is depending?

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

Agreed.

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.

You would find it unfortunate, but theist did most of the Intellectual Hardship not atheist. Check out some history books.

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).

Today all Atheist who are supporting Multiverse model are in fact those who are in supporting the idea that universe is eternal in the infinite past.

In the language of an astronomer, singularity means (we don’t know). It is simply a mathematical idealization. It is the point at which all space-time shrink down to literally nothing at all. Therefore, this is not an actual physical state of reality. Mathematical example to define singularity is something like dividing finite mass by zero, which always gives infinity.

13.77 billion Years, is a scientific speculation, not a scientific fact.

Quran gives a clue how universe came into being. See the following verses:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

Here Quran is not elaborating on what that unit of creation was but main idea is, universe began from a single unit of creation. You may name that as singularity or anything else but the model of Big Bang theory, which is the most consistent model compared to all other models of universe, is in perfect match with this verse of Quran.

1,400 years ago, there was no one around who might have thought how the universe came into existence. This is yet another great example.

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

We know, “Nothing” comes from “Nothingness” yet we are denying this fact. Negation of a fact does not make someone an honest person. It is in reality contrary to honesty.

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.

I used “supernatural balance” instead of “fine-tuning.”

Fine-tuning (supernatural balance) in fact is responsible for physical constants, notably the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces. If any of the four fundamental forces (weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and electron charge) had been even minutely different, the universe would not have supported life; they too must have been fine-tuned to an almost unbelievable accuracy. In addition, the suggestion, again, is that given the infinite range of possible values for the fundamental constants, design is suggested by the fact that the actual values fall in that extremely narrow range of values that permits the development of intelligent life.

Calculations show that if any of these constants had deviated even slightly from its actual value, the universe would have evolved in a radically different manner, making life, as we know it - and probably life of any sort - impossible. An example of the ‘fine-tuning’ is that if the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to gravity had varied by as much as one part in 10 to the power 40, there would be no stars like our sun.

Earth is following path of its motion as consequence of this fine-tuning of fundamental forces. We are talking about 1 cm variation but scientist are talking in terms of 10 to the power 40 (depending what is the case under consideration).

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

I have no objection.

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.

When I say universe is fine-tuned and 1 cm deviation of earth from its fixed path of motion can bring threat to life it means that a range of life permitting values of a constant or quantity is infinitesimally small compared to the possible values that constant or quantity might have had. If life permitting constant or quality were altered by the slightest amount, life would have been impossible. Life in this universe is balanced on the razor’s edge of incomprehensible fineness and precision. So if the balance would be slightly altered, life would not exist simply. Life is incredibly precarious in this universe.

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.

Did you ever ponder, what are the principles on which the processes of evolution are based? The big question is why there are principles and laws in the universe at all. Do you think all these smart principles and laws are only a matter of happenstance?

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.

Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein.

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.

Logic of Grand design and fine-tuning is loud enough to speak about intelligent Being behind the cause of the universe.

Premise 1 - Unproven.
Premise 2 - Unproven

You have obscenely rejected first two premises without giving literary support to your contentions.

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

I argue:

1. Universe cannot be without a cause
2. Cause of the universe is God

a. You have rejected God
b. You cannot prove “Nothingness” to be the cause

Therefore, if God and Nothingness are not your candidates then what is your suggestion for the cause of this universe?

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

---

Thanks for the palate cleanser.

Saying “invalid or unproven” in thin air is an unthinkable act.

---

(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.

(1) May or may not be true. Quantum particles and wave-fronts appear (at the present state of knowledge) to be uncaused phenomena. Causality gets fairly weird at the quantum level - effects preceding causes and so forth.

Hi Boru,

Firstly, the claim that things begin to exist from nothing in Quantum Mechanics is just patently false. In the first place, there are at least 10 different physical interpretations of the mathematical equations of the quantum mechanics and some of these interpretations are fully deterministic. Only according to Copenhagen, interpretation events are said to occur without determinant causes. But that is one out of 10 interpretations. Furthermore nobody knows which interpretation is correct. So in fact, it is not a successful counter example to the first premise.

Secondly, it is simply not true that quantum events simply exist out of nothing. These events are results of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, which is Not Nothing. Virtually when these particles form in the vacuum they are fluctuation of the energy that is locked up in the vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy govern by physical laws having a rich physical structure. There is nothing in the Quantum Mechanics even on the deterministic interpretations, which would suggest that things literally comes into being from nothing so it is not a successful counter example.

Victor Stinger admits it in his book “God the Failed Hypothesis” that causes for these events may someday be found therefore we can’t assert with any kind of confidence these events are really uncaused.

(2) Unjustified assumption. There is no philosophical or physical reason why the Universe cannot be infinitely old.

The idea that universe is infinitely old is against Established Facts of Science. Namely, expansion of the universe and all component of the universe are in continuous motion. Even inside a static rock, there is an incredible amount of activities happening at the atomic level. We know through science there is nothing in the universe that is not bound by the concept of aging. At all levels concept of ageing is working perfect well.

Second premise can be supported by both philosophical argument and scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments aim to show that the idea of an infinite regress of events in time is impossible metaphysically. In other words, number of past events must be finite and therefore the universe has a beginning. The scientific evidence is based on the expansion of the universe. So I see the scientific evidence confirmatory on the conclusion which already reached on the bases of philosophical arguments.

(3) Given the objection to #2 above, the most you can say here is that the Universe and God are coeval, which pretty neatly eliminates God as a cause of, well, anything, really.

According to Big Bang Theory, singularity is the point where Universe starts to be. Now how would that stands in causal relations to a transcendent cause? Well, I would say that God creates the universe at the moment at which the universe began to exist. So that the moment of God’s creation of the universe is the moment at which universe began to exist. Of course, those are simultaneous, what could be more obvious than that. Those are co-incident. They occur at the same time. Therefore, at T = zero God creates universe at the singularity and the universe began to expand. I don’t see any difficulty in understanding God’s relationship to time or his causation of the universe.