TenQ:

They are pretending that they cannot read English again!

StillDtruth:


Yes o!

Clear proof that they are Liars and that they know their Lies would fall under good examination and scrutiny. So they are running

Atheists love the freedom Darkness presents to them. It is easy to be exactly how you want to be without the guilt of submission to God who is the LIGHT

The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.


Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?





LordReed, Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord, Everyday247, Seun,

TenQ:
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

No attempt on these questions especially this number 4 since!

TenQ:


Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Examples of Real things that are [b]NOT Tangible
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields[/i]

No need to go into any back and forth with you. The snippet above shows your ignorance and arrant stupidity.

You are not even intelligent or knowledgeable enough for your delusions to be called Dunning Kruger effect.

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

Like I told your partner, you are too stupid for me to be even bother with. Sayonara you stupid SOB. Lmao

KnownUnknown:


No need to go into any back and forth with you. The snippet above shows your ignorance and arrant stupidity.

You are not even intelligent or knowledgeable enough for your delusions to be called Dunning Kruger effect.

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

Like I told your partner, you are too stupid for me to be even bother with. Sayonara you stupid SOB. Lmao

The demons in you have started manifesting again.

According to you
Photons and Gluons are NOT TANGIBLE Existences
AND
Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields, Gravitational Fields are TANGIBLE Existences



I can see how wise you have made yourself to be!

Emusan:


No attempt on these questions especially this number 4 since!

They know that all their Noise-making has been STUPIDITY borne out of IGNORANCE in light of question 4

1. Do you understand the writeup above?
2. Do you dissagree with it or not?
Can you thus attempt the questions given?


The Efficldence of Non-Tangible existence is only known by its effect.

Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

TenQ:


Like:
Her Grief was tangible!


1. Is this an objective judgement?
2. What is the value of Grief that will make it tangible?

Your royal majesty seems not to know what a figure of speech is: do you?

For the last time, direct your queries to the right channel, in this case, at the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Thank you

TenQ:

LordReed, Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord, Everyday247, Seun,

It is dishonest of you, TenQ, to drag this from where everyone said what they said so everyone can read the tangible evidence themselves instead of your intangible point of view.

You didn't even provide a link! So this is going to be my last response to you! Good day.

jaephoenix:

For the last time, direct your queries to the right channel, in this case, at the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Thank you

I can see the kind of breed of school-leavers we breed: those whose ability to reason is questionable

budaatum:


It is dishonest of you, TenQ, to drag this from where everyone said what they said so everyone can read the tangible evidence themselves instead of your intangible point of view.

You didn't even provide a link! So this is going to be my last response to you! Good day.

This is immature of you Buda

Check my first page:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE



by Veecruz: 10:44am On Apr 14
Atheist Says Spirit Is Nothing Because It Is Non Physical & Invisible


This was what I wrote:

TenQ:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.


Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?





LordReed, Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord, Everyday247, Seun,

It started with a THESIS
And concluded with QUESTIONS



And the Questions were different from the ONEs I asked you in the other Thread:


Buda: you are making yourself a lowlife just because my questions betray your lack of comprehension of simple things

TenQ:

I can see the kind of breed of school-leavers we breed: those whose ability to reason is questionable

And instead of doing what I asked, u decide to do drop insults. Awesome

jaephoenix:

And instead of doing what I asked, u decide to do drop insults. Awesome

I am actually learning from you: at least I have learnt that
1. Grief is Tangible
2. Life is Tangible

Can you describe the two for me in terms of their physical attributes?

Francistown
Since you're the wisest atheist in Africa
Kindly come and show your mastery and prove OP wrong

Aemmyjah:
Francistown
Since you're the wisest atheist in Africa
Kindly come and show your mastery and prove OP wrong

I think that the Intelligent Atheists would rather keep off as their answers to the questions will betray the foundation of their argument against the unseen (God, Soul or Spirits)

Aemmyjah:
Francistown
Since you're the wisest atheist in Africa
Kindly come and show your mastery and prove OP wrong

I just saw this mention. First of all. There is no such thing as the wisest atheist.
Atheism is not a field of study or a course of discipline.
We only have wise individuals and foolish individuals.
And just so you know. I'm not wise, not to talk of being the wisest. It's just that I'm not stupid.

Lemme now go for the OP.

@ Aemmyjah , please don't mention me on this guy's threads again.
This guy obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

Atheists don't say they do not believe in God and spirits because they are intangible.
We simply do not believe in those nonsense because they fail to satisfy at least a single criterion of the fundamental laws of physics.

If the TenQ guy can show me or mention anything in the world that doesn't satisfy at least a criterion but still gets recognitions from the body of science. Then the OP will begin to make sense to me.
But for now, he is capping.

The fundamental law of universe with respect to physics is that. The substances that made up the universe are either observable or touchable or being felt or interactive (with or without laboratory equipments.)
And the true physical laws are the same everywhere for all observers.

The Best you can do is slander when it is you who is below average in both knowledge of basic things and its comprehension.

FRANCISTOWN:
@ Aemmyjah , please don't mention me on this guy's threads again.
This guy obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

Atheists don't say they do not believe in God and spirits because they are intangible.
We simply do not believe in those nonsense because they fail to satisfy at least a single criterion of the fundamental laws of physics.

I wish you quoted me rather than assume what you think I am saying : your comprehension of English language is very bad: I challenge you to quote me properly
My definition is not complete ?
I didn't add the reason why you don't believe in Deities!?
Check you definition: many atheists will disagree with you!

Have you heard of the term "Lacking a Belief before!?"

FRANCISTOWN:

If the TenQ guy can show me or mention anything in the world that doesn't satisfy at least a criterion but still gets recognitions from the body of science. Then the OP will begin to make sense to me.
But for now, he is capping.

Let me mention two:
Linguistics and Psychology

Do these get some recognitions from the body of science?

As if everything is Physical Science!

FRANCISTOWN:

The fundamental law of universe with respect to physics is that. The substances that made up the universe are either observable or touchable or being felt or interactive (with or without laboratory equipments.)
And the true physical laws are the same everywhere for all observers.

First, check the childishness you posted in response to my questions which you could not even score a respectable E.

I am too sure you never read my post on:
Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects
Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.








On your Definition of Atheism:
Because I do not fall in Line with your STUPID definition of Yourselves!?
I did an analysis of your preferred definition of "Lacking a Belief in any Deity"

I Know that you wouldn't Read but glance through how your preferred definition stands in light of Logic and Common sense.

Don't take me to the Atheists' DUMB definition of "Lacking a Belief in any Deity"!
The ONLY creatures who can TRULY lack a belief in any Deity are
1. Animals: For they lack the ability to comprehend the abstract nature of the definition of a deity
2. Babies: Due to immaturity of mind, they cannot even take any rational position about any deity
3. Imb.eciles: Just like babies cannot take any rational position about deities

Which of these three camps do you fall in with your LACK of BELIEF?


Lacking a Belief in an subject means:
You do not have ANY position for or against the subject.

Belief:
A Belief is a position we take when we do NOT have sufficient information to be 100% CERTAIN about a subject.

Examples of possible Beliefs
-Russia will win the war over Ukraine
-Third World war is inevitable within the next two years
-By Next month, $1.00 will be less than N600.00

What a rational person does before he takes a person of Belief is that he weighs PROBABILITY according to his judgment from available information he has if his position is worth holding or not.


The ONLY reason you bother to spend time on the Religious section of Nairaland is that you believe you have enough justification to DISCARD the Deity of the Christians and others!


Of course you don't think nor reason but swallow anything and everything godless people give to you as facts without question.
Sorry: How can Dawkins be wrong?

TenQ:
The Best you can do is slander when it is you who is below average in both knowledge of basic things and its comprehension.




I wish you quoted me rather than assume what you think I am saying : your comprehension of English language is very bad: I challenge you to quote me properly
My definition is not complete ?
I didn't add the reason why you don't believe in Deities!?
Check you definition: many atheists will disagree with you!

Have you heard of the term "Lacking a Belief before!?"

Let me mention two:
Linguistics and Psychology

Do these get some recognitions from the body of science?

As if everything is Physical Science!

First, check the childishness you posted in response to my questions which you could not even score a respectable E.

I am too sure you never read my post on:
Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects
Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.








On your Definition of Atheism:
Because I do not fall in Line with your STUPID definition of Yourselves!?
I did an analysis of your preferred definition of "Lacking a Belief in any Deity"

I Know that you wouldn't Read but glance through how your preferred definition stands in light of Logic and Common sense.

Don't take me to the Atheists' DUMB definition of "Lacking a Belief in any Deity"!
The ONLY creatures who can TRULY lack a belief in any Deity are
1. Animals: For they lack the ability to comprehend the abstract nature of the definition of a deity
2. Babies: Due to immaturity of mind, they cannot even take any rational position about any deity
3. Imb.eciles: Just like babies cannot take any rational position about deities

Which of these three camps do you fall in with your LACK of BELIEF?


Lacking a Belief in an subject means:
You do not have ANY position for or against the subject.

Belief:
A Belief is a position we take when we do NOT have sufficient information to be 100% CERTAIN about a subject.

Examples of possible Beliefs
-Russia will win the war over Ukraine
-Third World war is inevitable within the next two years
-By Next month, $1.00 will be less than N600.00

What a rational person does before he takes a person of Belief is that he weighs PROBABILITY according to his judgment from available information he has if his position is worth holding or not.


The ONLY reason you bother to spend time on the Religious section of Nairaland is that you believe you have enough justification to DISCARD the Deity of the Christians and others!


Of course you don't think nor reason but swallow anything and everything godless people give to you as facts without question.
Sorry: How can Dawkins be wrong?

Are you mad and stupid? It's like you wish to be unfortunate. Why the insults? Did I insult you when I mentioned you?

Please I have no grace for foolishness. If you can't mention me without insult then let's die this conversation here.

Upon all the nonsense that you wrote and stupid things that you posted you still had the guts to insult someone? Onye iberibe.

TenQ:

I am actually learning from you: at least I have learnt that
1. Grief is Tangible
2. Life is Tangible

Can you describe the two for me in terms of their physical attributes?

Transfer your questions to MW. Thank you

FRANCISTOWN:

Are you mad and stupid? It's like you wish to be unfortunate. Why the insults? Did I insult you when I mentioned you?

Please I have no grace for foolishness. If you can't mention me without insult then let's die this conversation here.

Upon all the nonsense that you wrote and stupid things that you posted you still had the guts to insult someone? Onye iberibe.

Do you want to check the first ever post you made to me on this subject?
https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/13#129598386

I was ladden with Ad Hominem and insults rather than addressing the specific questions I asked. What you give is what you get sir. If you want to be civil, I can be also with you BUT if you feel that the way to go is your stance, I am never afraid of a fight.

If you are willing to speak intellectually, then be my guest. My questions were simple and almost elementary to warrant the kind of response you did. Just check your first post and beyond)..


Again Read without any bias and answer based on your TRUE beliefs and then we can talk:

TenQ:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.


Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

jaephoenix:

Transfer your questions to MW. Thank you

Alright,
Do you concur to this?

All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Which do you disagree about!?


To help me, let me know your definition of a reality (something that exist) being TANGIBLE

FRANCISTOWN:

Are you mad and stupid? It's like you wish to be unfortunate. Why the insults? Did I insult you when I mentioned you?

Please I have no grace for foolishness. If you can't mention me without insult then let's die this conversation here.

Upon all the nonsense that you wrote and stupid things that you posted you still had the guts to insult someone? Onye iberibe.

Eeyah
Kpele
😂

I called u to prove OP wrong, not to react this way

Aemmyjah:


Eeyah
Kpele
😂

I called u to prove OP wrong, not to react this way

I thought he had some knowledge but I was truly disappointed.

He is behaving like one of the "Wanabe" Atheist: as if cultism is an achievement

Aemmyjah:


Eeyah
Kpele
😂

I called u to prove OP wrong, not to react this way

How do you react when you wake in the morning only to be greeted by barrage of insults?

TenQ:

Do you want to check the first ever post you made to me on this subject?
https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/13#129598386

I was ladden with Ad Hominem and insults rather than addressing the specific questions I asked. What you give is what you get sir. If you want to be civil, I can be also with you BUT if you feel that the way to go is your stance, I am never afraid of a fight.

If you are willing to speak intellectually, then be my guest. My questions were simple and almost elementary to warrant the kind of response you did. Just check your first post and beyond)..


Again Read without any bias and answer based on your TRUE beliefs and then we can talk:

I didn't insult you first. I'm always sure of that.

TenQ:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.


Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?





LordReed, Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord, Everyday247, Seun,

You wrote too many things, that I don't even know where to start from.
I'll only answer according to the way I understand the world.

To begin with, I'd like you to state where you got the notion that atheists say that everything must be tangible. Did you get it from the atheists' Bible, is there anything like that? Because I'm sure I've never said anything like that despite being an atheist.

Things that are not real are not necessary virtual. Lemme use the same example that you used.
Your image in the mirror is not you, but it doesn't mean the image doesn't exist.
When you stand in front of a mirror, the photons and the waves of electromagnetic radiations from your reflection hitting the surface of the mirror produces your image.
Which actually exists. Your image is virtual, but the photons and the electromagnetic radiations are real.

The basis for this debate is that "Atheists say whatever isn't tangible isn't real".

Since I haven't said that, I don't think it's necessary for me to defend what you assumed.

However, not everything that is intangible is inexistent.

I'm an atheist and I do not base my lack of beliefs on the tangibility of a reality. I think it will get interesting if you could call out the atheists who base their lack of beliefs on the tangibility of a reality.

Wow, i just logged in right now and saw this mention. op i didn't really read what you posted, but it was very long and i believe you spent a lot of time on it so you get an E for effort. Good job boss.

TenQ:


Like:
Her Grief was tangible!


1. Is this an objective judgement?
2. What is the value of Grief that will make it tangible?

Your royal majesty seems not to know what a figure of speech is: do you?

Her grief was tangible is not a figure of speech.

When you see someone seriously grieving, you can describe it as tangible. A tangible grief is one that's intensely felt and seen by others watching you. That's the meaning


You only know one meaning of tangible and that's the problem you have.

If you say it's a figure of speech,then mention what figure of speech it's. Figures of speech have names.

Emusan:


No attempt on these questions especially this number 4 since!

It has been answered, but your friend won't accept the answers .

The questions are even needless. Nobody ever ask those before using a software. He has an agenda he's denying .

Tell him to tell you the actual reason behind the questions. He has refused to answer directly.

FRANCISTOWN:

I didn't insult you first. I'm always sure of that.

You di sir.

I gave you evidence

Do you want to check the first ever post you made to me on this subject?
https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/13#129598386