Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

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

Tautological and meaningless.

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

No - brain function is self-consciousness. Didn't I just say that?

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

You are being nonsensical within the universe - so you can be nonsensical outside the universe.

Who don’t agree?

Who does?

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

And Unoverse is defined in such a way to include its origin as a component.

So, on what the universe is depending?

Nothing.

Agreed.

Then stop with the strawman.

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

So you mean they get intellectually lazy only when it comes to the origin of the universe?

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.

You are confusing different positions here.

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.

Nope, it is a 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.

Not really - it was plagiarized from Vedic Hinduism. You see, in Hinduism there is the concept called "Golden Egg" - the unmanifest form of the Universe containing the totality of existence. According to Hinduism, it manifested billions of years ago - i.e. took form as the current universe - and that is the closest religious model of Big-Bang. It even got the time-scale right and it did so a thousand years before your Mohammad copied that information.

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.

We don't know that actually. Evidence suggests that something may come form nothingness.

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

There is no fine-tuning either.

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.

Yet another moronic fine-tuning argument. It has been defeated multiple times - on this very forum.

Read up -

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html

All your arguments and all other arguments you are about to make have already been defeated here.

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).

You've already been proven wrong on this point.

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.

That, we know to be false. Life on the earth has survived for millions of years - through vast climate changes, global disasters and many mass extinctions - and yet, it continues to persist. We know that life is possible within a wide range of conditions. So no, it is not very finely balanced or precarious.

But, I should not have addressed this at all. Like I said, all the fine-tuning arguments you can think of have already been made and defeated in the suggested thread. Go look it up.

From now on, every time yo make a fine-tuning argument, I'd be pointing to that thread.

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?

There are not principles or laws in the universe. The universe works the way it works because it is in its nature. We conclude laws and principles based on how it works.

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

I hate it when people on the internet misuse my quotes.
Albert Einstein.

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

Yup - false claims often need to be loud.

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

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I argue:

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

1. Not proven. You haven't established that universe needs a cause.
2. Invalid conclusion.

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

false dichotomy

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

I don't need to suggest anything - I'm not making any claims.

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

And yet, I've thought of it.