budaatum:

Apply what logic consistently? Though I know you know I do.
We are talking about definitions, please, and have struggled over many pages on it, so I don't think we are ready for logic yet.

Words, for users of them by some of us here, are fluid, and may mean different things in different contexts, which is why it is good that you define the words you contest, so asking for the sort of open ended consistency you wish for may meet exceptions, do note.

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the Software being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

AGAIN: For the Avoidance of Doubt, does this position represent your Definition of Tangible with respect to Software in a Machine?
First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

budaatum:

I have read that verse before, Tenq. What I have not done is allow such a rubbish verse to become a part of the software that programs me such that I would stupidly equate myself with clay while some are potters and some are aspiring to be the work and even the Your Hand O Lord.

Trust me, this is not a surprise.
Many atheist become such because they reject to be under the Authority of any Deity (Creator or not). These to me are the TRUE Atheist, who do not hide under being Agnostic.

NairaLTQ:

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine.

This is not true! We did not "solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe", and you saying we did just shows you are not really hearing what you read or are just plain telling lies, because if you read what I and many wrote you will read where we said the fact that we may have sat down and wrote every line of the code and then put it in the machine is evidence that the software ought to be in the machine, and we offered methods to check, but it seems like you just want to go on the merry-go-round again by lying to yourself that we said what we never said while ignoring what was said.

To wit, goodluck with that.

budaatum:


This is not true! We did not "solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe", and you saying we did just shows you are not really hearing what you read or are just plain telling lies, because if you read what I and many wrote you will read where we said the fact that we may have sat down and wrote every line of the code and then put it in the machine is evidence that the software ought to be in the machine, and we offered methods to check, but it seems like you just want to go on the merry-go-round again by lying to yourself that we said what we never said while ignoring what was said.

To wit, goodluck with that.

You see why it was good to review these positions even when it sounds monotonous?

Why then did you say that the software was Tangible?

Can you please use your definition of "Tangible" to say why you think each of the following is Tangible (if they are) .
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

I need to know your exact position and definition of the word "Tangible"

Dear JessicaRabbit

About the Atheists preferred definition of Atheism as "Lacking Belief in any Deity!"


The phase "Lacking Belief in any Deity!" has serious negative implications.


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

I am sure that no atheist will claim to be in any of these three camps of creatures who can LACK 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!

NairaLTQ:

The Question was simple:
Is the Software WITHIN the memory of a HDD Tangible or not tangible?

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the SOftware being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

I only ask, can you be consistent in saying that ANY Nomenclature that has Effects on the Physical Hardware is Tangible?

Your last question makes no sense. Read and read till you understand why I say so.

Tangibility or intangibility is a broad term . Everything can't have the same kind of tangibility or intangibility So insisting one use it to mean the same thing in all situation is unhelpful for anyone.

We can refer to a software as intangible,but it's not the same intangible as when talking of spirit.

Another thing is that, you're the only one defining a software as intangible part of a computer that's not measurable. It's never defined that way anywhere.

TenQ:
Summary:

Conclusion:
1. If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

2. If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.

Do we agree to these two basic rules. We have an understanding asd a rule of Engagement

CC:
Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord
TheBillyonaire LordReed triplechoice: FRANCISTOWN: jaephoenix: JessicaRabbit

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

So you want us to engage you based on what you want "tangible" to be or lemme rephrase and say, based on what you altered "tangible" to be?
You downplayed the word's meaning itself , which the whole world recognize and you gave it a meaning to satisfy your intentions.

Mtcheeeew! Brosky, whatever you think or want tangible to be is basically your own cup of tea to deal with and is none of our business.

When you have something that is more familiar with common reasoning, then you can debate us on facts and not what you want.

I apologize to myself for wasting my precious time on this irrelevant discussion.

CC:
Budaatum , triplechoice , KnownUnknown , Jaephoenix , TheBillyonaire , LordReed , triplechoice , jaephoenix:

Aemmyjah :
Emusan :
StillDtruth :

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

As in. It's not worth engaging at all.
This kind of thread depletes intellectual capability.

See atheists complaining eh!

Aemmyjah:
Francistown
Kindly come and prove OP wrong.

OP was already wrong to begin with.
I guess he needs to learn how to effectively query ChatGPT, understand scientific terminologies and get familiar with lexicons before he can engage atheists on a worthy discussion.

Because one can't just manufacture a definition from the thin atmosphere and expect everyone with common sense to dance around it. Never!

FayaBall:
See atheists complaining eh!

Complaining about what dear?

Now, na worthy discussion because e no sweet dem again!

FRANCISTOWN:

Complaining about what dear?

But you know dear!

FayaBall:


But you know dear!

I don't know dear!

FRANCISTOWN:

I don't know dear!

FayaBall:
Now, na worthy discussion because e no sweet dem again!

How do you expect us to be comfortable with definitions and theories that are not consistent with any field of knowledge or dictionary?

This is plain common sense.

FRANCISTOWN:


How do you expect us to be comfortable with definitions and theories that are not consistent with any field of knowledge or dictionaries?

This is plain common sense.

Now Una dey find common sense when e no sweet you again.

FayaBall:


Now Una dey find common sense when e no sweet you again.

If I said "christians are people who worship Mohammed, and they do not believe in Jesus because he is from Africa". Would that make any sense to you, or would you find it worthy of discourse?

FRANCISTOWN:

If I said "christians are people who worship Mohammed, and they do not believe in Jesus because he is from Africa". Would that make any sense to you, or would you find it worthy of discourse?

Now Una dey find common sense when e no sweet you again.

FayaBall:


Now Una dey find common sense when e no sweet you again.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
You can't enlighten a man who is passionately committed to ignorance.

Have a good morning.

FRANCISTOWN:

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
You can't enlighten a man who is passionately committed to ignorance.

Have a good morning.

Lamentations of an Atheist!

NairaLTQ:
Dear Jessica Rabbit

About the Atheists preferred definition of Atheism as "Lacking Belief in any Deity!"


The phase "Lacking Belief in any Deity!" has serious negative implications.


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

I am sure that no atheist will claim to be in any of these three camps of creatures who can LACK 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!

If this is what your idea of atheism is, then I'm afraid you've been terribly misinformed to the point where I have to wonder what you stand to gain by challenging something you clearly do not understand. You're obviously confusing yourself on the fundamental principles here. Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in deities. It's not an exclusive club for any subset of humans in the wider society. Nowhere does it imply a lack of comprehension or rationality. And it's quite funny how you whip up random categories at me, while not noticing for yourself that those categories are charmingly limited. So you just happened to leave out, oh, I don't know, the vast majority of atheists?... People who've examined the evidence for deities and found it wanting, perhaps? Those who simply don't find the concept compelling? I wonder if that was an honest omission or one of mere convenience?

Moving on, I can promise that this isn't be the first time I'm hearing the "babies and animals" analogy when discussing atheism as a subject. It's an old and tired trope which lazily implies that belief in deities is the natural state, and this is demonstrably untrue. Children raised without any religion often don't exhibit inherent belief. And attributing complex theological concepts to a hamster is frankly giving them more credit than their maze-running skills deserve. Atheism doesn't require grand pronouncements or blind faith. It's just a person saying, "Hey, I haven't seen any convincing evidence for this whole god thing." So, the next time you encounter an atheist, maybe you can ditch the condescending tripe about babies and braindeadness.

As for your assertion that "lacking a belief in a subject means you do not have ANY position for or against the subject": that's a bit like saying, "If you don't have a favorite ice cream flavor, you must therefore hate all ice cream." It's a false dichotomy! One can simply lack a preference without any active disdain. It's true that beliefs often occupy the space where knowledge fears to tread. However, if you assert that beliefs only arise from a lack of information, then you are wilfully ignoring the rich tapestry of psychological, cultural, and emotional factors that also play pivotal roles in belief formation.

Let's take a close look at the examples you provided:

(1)

Russia will win the war over Ukraine

This is a predictive belief, likely based on current military capabilities and historical precedents, but as any student of history knows, you can't entirely count out the underdogs.

(2)

Third World War is inevitable within the next two years

Inevitability is a bold term to use. It's the rhetorical equivalent of betting all your chips on red because it's come up twice in a row.

(3)

By Next month, $1.00 will be less than N600.00

Economic forecasts are as stable as a house of cards in a wind tunnel. They're educated guesses dressed up in business attire.

A rational person indeed weighs the probability before adopting a belief, but let's not forget that humans are notoriously irrational creatures. We're the same species that invented both the scientific method and the concept of knocking on wood for good luck. As for the reason for my engagement with religion forums, it's not just about discarding a belief; it's about seeking evidence. In the absence of empirical data, the atheist might say, "I'll pass on the God hypothesis, thanks." It's not necessarily a belief in non-existence, but rather a skepticism of claims that lack substantiation.

Aemmyjah:


Madam
It's intelligent of you to focus on my question
Thank you

Sure, let's focus! But before we do, is a rock hurtling through space considered "having a cause" in your book? Because if a giant space boulder qualifies, then the answer might be a lot more interesting than a simple yes or no, wouldn't you agree?

NairaLTQ:

Perception of your claim.

On your part or mine?

Prior to the year 1849, did they know if there was anything called Electrons?
Since they didn't know, does it imply that electrons did not exist at that time?
Lack of knowledge of the awareness of an object is not equivalent to the object not existing

Bingo! You've almost grasped the point.

Electrons undeniably existed before 1849, just like gravity existed before Newton. The key difference is that we didn't understand them. We couldn't explain certain phenomena (like the behavior of light) until the concept of the electron emerged. Now, back to Neptune. We had a theory that explained most planetary motion...until it didn't. Unexpected observations (Uranus's off-kilter orbit) forced us to revise that theory, leading to the discovery of Neptune. So, yes, electrons existed before we knew about them, but unlike Neptune, they weren't a missing piece in an existing framework. They were a whole new concept needed to explain entirely new phenomena.

If we find a non-carbon based living thing on Mars, would we not ascribe to it LIFE?
If you found a kind of computer on Mars, would you not allude to it being programmed?

Let me act like the Atheists on this Nairaland here: Mirage has Effects and the The Effect is that you SEE it
with your eyes! LOL!! (It can be frustrating).

Of course we know from experience that softwares in a Machine are REAL
However, I do not think I am CERTAIN of your definition for TANGIBLE with Respect to Softwares.

Check if your position is taken care of below:

Conclusion:
Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

Position 2:
If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.


Which is your position of the TWO above

Now you have presented two positions on tangibility, and while both are interesting thought experiments, I wouldn't say either perfectly captures the way I see things.

Position 1: Tangibility as Producing Effects

This definition is broad and encompasses many things we wouldn't typically consider "tangible" in everyday language. Gravity, for instance, undeniably has effects, but we can't exactly hold it in our hands. Let's not forget that science deals with a vast spectrum of existence, from the mind-bendingly small (subatomic particles) to the cosmically large (black holes). Tangibility, in that sense, becomes a spectrum as well. It's true that we can't directly touch software, but its effects are demonstrably real. If I give you a specific set of instructions (software) to bake a cake, and you follow them, you get a delicious cake -- a very tangible outcome. The software itself might not be "touchable," but its impact on the physical world is undeniable. Your definition however gets a bit tricky when we consider things like mathematics or logic. These are more abstract concepts that describe relationships and processes, not necessarily things that directly interact with the physical world. Do they have effects? Certainly, in the sense that they allow us to understand and manipulate the world around us. But their "effects" are more indirect.

Position 2: Tangibility based on Measurement

This definition is more grounded in the physical world. It focuses on things we can measure with our senses or instruments -- mass, dimension, energy, and time. Here, software falls short. It doesn't have a physical form we can measure directly. Something you might have missed though is that this definition also excludes some things we generally consider real. Can you directly measure gravity with your senses? Not quite. We infer its existence through its effects on objects. Similarly, magnetic fields are invisible but have undeniable effects. So, where does this leave us? I propose a nuanced view of tangibility. There's a clear distinction between things that are purely abstract concepts (like love or justice) and things that have demonstrable effects on the physical world, even if those effects are indirect. Software falls somewhere in the middle. It's a set of instructions, a blueprint for manipulating information. It doesn't have a physical form, but its effects are undeniably real. Similarly, concepts like gravity or magnetic fields might not be directly measurable in the way a brick is, but their existence is inferred through their well-established effects.

As for your analogy of finding a "computer" on Mars. If we discovered a device manipulating information in a way analogous to software, I still insist that it would simply show nothing beyond the probability that another intelligent being has figured out a way to process information. It wouldn't necessarily prove a divine programmer.

There is no definite scientific position on whether Plants are conscious or NOT.
Plants do exhibit behaviors and responses to their environment, such as growth toward light (phototropism), response to touch (thigmotropism), and the ability to detect and respond to changes in temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors. These behaviors are typically explained by physiological processes and mechanisms such as hormone signaling, but whether they constitute consciousness in the way humans or animals experience it is unclear.

This was why I tried to differentiate between Consciousness and Sensing of Information. A Thermostat senses temperature, but is is not conscious.

You make a fair point about the scientific jury being out on plant consciousness. But don't forget that you initially presented a very specific understanding of consciousness that seemed to equate basic stimuli response with sentience. Also, for all their marvels of engineering, thermostats are not exactly pondering the meaning of existence. They're simply following pre-programmed instructions. That's a far cry from the subjective experiences we associate with consciousness in humans and animals. I see you're setting a major distinction between consciousness and sensing information. This is a crucial step. There's a clear distinction between reacting to stimuli and actually having subjective experiences -- feelings, thoughts, qualia (the "what it's like" aspect of experience). The big question here is: where do we draw the line? Is a dog experiencing the world in a similar way to a human? What about simpler creatures? This is where the conversation about consciousness gets truly fascinating, and frankly, a bit mind-bending.

But there is good news! Neuroscience is making incredible strides in understanding the brain and its role in consciousness. We may not have all the answers yet, but the more we delve into the complexities of the nervous system, the closer we get to a more nuanced understanding of this remarkable phenomenon.

Like I said, this is how we as Christians understand Faith and Belief, you don't have to agree with it because you are not one of us.
It is a SUBJECTIVE experience that Every Christian have about God.

Listen, I understand that faith is a personal experience for Christians. There's no denying that. However, personal experiences don't translate to universal truths, especially when it comes to the existence of deities. Let's explore this "subjective experience" a bit further. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? It's a well-documented psychological phenomenon where we tend to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs and downplay anything that contradicts them. This can be a powerful force when it comes to religious experiences. Here's a thought experiment: if someone claimed to have a deeply personal experience with Zeus throwing lightning bolts, most Christians would likely scoff. Why? Because it doesn't align with their specific faith. This highlights the subjective nature of these experiences. Now, I'm not saying your experiences aren't real to you. They undoubtedly are. But the key question is: how do we differentiate between a genuine encounter with the divine and a powerful psychological experience fueled by confirmation bias or cultural conditioning? Science offers a robust methodology for evaluating evidence and building a coherent understanding of the universe. It may not provide all the answers (yet!), but it thrives on skepticism and the constant reevaluation of existing knowledge. At the end of the day, it's still your choice. You can embrace faith as a subjective truth, but you surely can't expect it to hold the same weight as objective evidence in a conversation about the origins of the universe or the existence of deities.

I asked you a simple question:
Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience?

Absolutely possible. It's a head-scratcher, but logic doesn't hinge on needing a tidy "first cause." I'd rather we explore actual evidence, not philosophical puzzles.

There was a divine explanation before the advent of science : it is science that is trying to say otherwise without giving a definite replacing answer.

Science doesn't need to provide a definitive origin story to disprove Zeus' lightning bolts. It just needs a better explanation, which, throughout history, science has a pretty good track record of doing.

Mathematics and Logic has nothing to do with matter, therefore, they could predate time itself.

If math exists outside time, how come we pesky humans need time to understand it?

Truth should precede existence of matter . Truth is an aspect of LOGIC

Logic relies on a universe to make sense of. We can't have true statements about nothing.

Then , can you please show how an Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is possible?

We can explore infinite regress as a concept, but science prioritizes workable explanations for what we can observe.

We all agree that cause and Effect exist.

My dear, we agree on breathing too, but that doesn't mean a fish understands the concept of air.

Only if you can show Logically that Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is possible;

Otherwise, the Deduction stands:
There must be A Primary Cause or an Uncaused First Cause that started the chain of cause and Effect

Classic appeal to incredulity. Just because we can't grasp how something infinite works, doesn't mean it can't exist. Maybe the universe is a fractal of existence, endlessly self-referential, or perhaps time itself is a loop -- your 'first cause' might be right next to you, completely invisible because you're stuck in a linear mindset. The point is, the absence of a clear cause in our current understanding doesn't equate to the absence of a cause altogether. The universe might be far weirder than a 'first cause' fairy tale."

I did not ask you about our understanding of atoms and molecules.
I asked
Did Atoms also evolved?

Of course, they don't evolve in the Darwinian sense. They lack the key ingredients: inheritance and variation through reproduction. They're more like fixed characters in a cosmic play.

It is the Beauty of Language: Whatever you call it , so it is!
Except it is a person who told you his/her name.

True. Language is a tool we crafted, a way to make sense of the world around us. It can be poetic, misleading, or hilariously nonsensical (see "moist" for reference). Just because we call something a person with a name doesn't make it so. If I name my toaster "NairaLTQ," that doesn't imbue it with sentience or a toast-making calling. The universe, in all its complex glory, likely operates on principles beyond human labels and narratives.

The aeroplane is complex: but it can be made in a garage
Can one make an Eye in the garage?

I have shown you that the complexities of LIFE is far much more than the Being itself BUT its environment.

The System of the Body need the System of the Earth to survive. This is the point.

Can I make an "eye"? Sure, with enough spare parts and a good screwdriver! Complexity isn't magic, it's emergent. Sandcastle vs. eye? False dichotomy. Both intricate, built from simpler parts.

So, what drove chemical reactions to form chains of carbon and nitrogen and then BUILD a code into it (DNA) which formed the fundermental basis of life?

Excellent question! We don't know all the specifics yet, but science is actively exploring it. Maybe it was clay minerals acting as templates, or perhaps prebiotic soup shenanigans. The point is, there are natural processes that could have nudged these reactions in a life-friendly direction. No magic needed, just the power of time and the right conditions. DNA itself likely emerged from simpler molecules, like RNA, in a gradual dance of increasing complexity. It's a captivating story waiting to be unraveled, far more thrilling than a pre-written script by a divine hand.

NairaLTQ:

It is easy to define (a minimum criteria) for a complex object if it consist of at least two interdependent systems.
Of course Meters are not complex. The may even be from debris from colliding larger bodies.

Deliberately, I gave you a Ball Pen as an example of complex objects
The metal ball
The ink
The Ball Socket
The Ink Receiver
The Ink Reservoir
The Finger Grip Stem
All which must simultaneously exist for it to function as a pen: this is a complex assembly of system, so we know that it is the work of an Intelligent mind BECAUSE all these work together for a purpose: WRITING on a paper. (We didnt even spaek about the paper)

The pen, much like the watch, is indeed a product of intelligent design -- human intelligence, to be precise. But to leap from human-designed objects to the natural world is to compare apples and oranges -- or in this case, pens and petunias. The components of a pen are designed to fit together because they were created with a specific purpose in mind. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't work towards a purpose; it works through natural selection. Traits that confer a survival advantage are passed on, while those that don't tend to disappear. Over vast stretches of time, this process can lead to the emergence of complex organisms, but there's no foresight or planning involved. It's all about what works. So, when we're talking about complexity in nature, we're really talking about something that arises out of simplicity. A single cell, for instance, might not seem like much, but give it a few billion years, and you might just end up with a blue whale, a baobab, or a human being capable of designing a ballpoint pen. And let's not forget that complexity can also arise from non-biological processes. Snowflakes, with their intricate patterns, form through the simple process of water vapor crystallizing in the cold. No intelligent snowflake designer required.

TLDR: the complexity of living things is the result of natural processes, not a sign of an intelligent designer. And as for the paper? Well, that's just wood pulp that's been processed by -- you guessed it -- intelligent humans! The trees it came from, though? Purely the work of nature's own brand of artistry. No divine pen required.

FRANCISTOWN:

So you want us to engage you based on what you want "tangible" to be or lemme rephrase and say, based on what you altered "tangible" to be?
You downplayed the word's meaning itself , which the whole world recognize and you gave it a meaning to satisfy your intentions.

Mtcheeeew! Brosky, whatever you think or want tangible to be is basically your own cup of tea to deal with and is none of our business.

When you have something that is more familiar with common reasoning, then you can debate us on facts and not what you want.

I apologize to myself for wasting my precious time on this irrelevant discussion.

CC:
Budaatum , triplechoice , KnownUnknown , Jaephoenix , TheBillyonaire , LordReed , triplechoice , jaephoenix:

Aemmyjah :
Emusan :
StillDtruth :

What is wrong with you people?

I used a definition of Tangible to mean anything that has mass or energy or dimension, you were all screaming "blueberry" that anything that has effect on objects are tangible.

Now, I decided to go with you AND adopt your definition: but this is still a problem.

The only reason is that the implication is not favourable to you as you cannot be consistent with your definitions.

FRANCISTOWN:

As in. It's not worth engaging at all.
This kind of thread depletes intellectual capability.

When two noise makers console each other!

FayaBall:
See atheists complaining eh!

They do not want to hold any position for which they can be held accountable

FRANCISTOWN:

OP was already wrong to begin with.
I guess he needs to learn how to effectively query ChatGPT, understand scientific terminologies and get familiar with lexicons before he can engage atheists on a worthy discussion.

Because one can't just manufacture a definition from the thin atmosphere and expect everyone with common sense to dance around it. Never!

Cowardice is what I see in you all.
You do not want to be taken by your own definition: all you can do is to bleat endlessly "Four Legs Good: Two Legs Bad!"

Tangible is now a difficult word to define! SMH!!

FRANCISTOWN:


How do you expect us to be comfortable with definitions and theories that are not consistent with any field of knowledge or dictionary?

This is plain common sense.

Tell me how the definition of things that are tangible violate the principle that such will either have mass or dimension or energy?


You decided to broaden the definition of Tangible to everything that has effect on matter.

Meaning that to Atheists here on Nairaland:
Mathematics
Logic
Software
Consciousness
Information
Gravitational Fields
Electric Fields
Magnetic Fields
Are ALL Tangible because you can see the effect they have on other things

Now, I adopted your definition : all I ask is that you be consistent with your definition and like cowards, you are running away with your self-delusions!

Can you be helped!?
The answer is obvious

JessicaRabbit:

If this is what your idea of atheism is, then I'm afraid you've been terribly misinformed to the point where I have to wonder what you stand to gain by challenging something you clearly do not understand. You're obviously confusing yourself on the fundamental principles here. Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in deities. It's not an exclusive club for any subset of humans in the wider society. Nowhere does it imply a lack of comprehension or rationality. And it's quite funny how you whip up random categories at me, while not noticing for yourself that those categories are charmingly limited. So you just happened to leave out, oh, I don't know, the vast majority of atheists?... People who've examined the evidence for deities and found it wanting, perhaps? Those who simply don't find the concept compelling? I wonder if that was an honest omission or one of mere convenience?

Moving on, I can promise that this isn't be the first time I'm hearing the "babies and animals" analogy when discussing atheism as a subject. It's an old and tired trope which lazily implies that belief in deities is the natural state, and this is demonstrably untrue. Children raised without any religion often don't exhibit inherent belief. And attributing complex theological concepts to a hamster is frankly giving them more credit than their maze-running skills deserve. Atheism doesn't require grand pronouncements or blind faith. It's just a person saying, "Hey, I haven't seen any convincing evidence for this whole god thing." So, the next time you encounter an atheist, maybe you can ditch the condescending tripe about babies and braindeadness.

As for your assertion that "lacking a belief in a subject means you do not have ANY position for or against the subject": that's a bit like saying, "If you don't have a favorite ice cream flavor, you must therefore hate all ice cream." It's a false dichotomy! One can simply lack a preference without any active disdain. It's true that beliefs often occupy the space where knowledge fears to tread. However, if you assert that beliefs only arise from a lack of information, then you are wilfully ignoring the rich tapestry of psychological, cultural, and emotional factors that also play pivotal roles in belief formation.

There is a difference between knowing and Believing
Knowing:
1. We dont Believe that 1+5=6 because we can 100% verify that this is the outcome of our position remain static even if you go to the moon or mars to do it.
2. We don't Believe that Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the president of Nigeria. It is among the things we know with 100% certainty.
Believing:
We hold a position of Belief and not knowledge anytime our position has an iota of uncertainty.

JessicaRabbit:

Let's take a close look at the examples you provided:

(1)
This is a predictive belief, likely based on current military capabilities and historical precedents, but as any student of history knows, you can't entirely count out the underdogs.

(2)
Inevitability is a bold term to use. It's the rhetorical equivalent of betting all your chips on red because it's come up twice in a row.

(3)
Economic forecasts are as stable as a house of cards in a wind tunnel. They're educated guesses dressed up in business attire.

All these are still Beliefs: because the outcome even though may be plausible (based on some insider information) is not solely under the control of anyone.

JessicaRabbit:

A rational person indeed weighs the probability before adopting a belief, but let's not forget that humans are notoriously irrational creatures. We're the same species that invented both the scientific method and the concept of knocking on wood for good luck. As for the reason for my engagement with religion forums, it's not just about discarding a belief; it's about seeking evidence. In the absence of empirical data, the atheist might say, "I'll pass on the God hypothesis, thanks." It's not necessarily a belief in non-existence, but rather a skepticism of claims that lack substantiation.

Can you state your three best reasons for disbelieving in any Deity as the Creator?