MaxInDHouse:


Alfa "Mún-un ní ìrù"

Maxi , is this what Jesus asked you guys to be doing?😂😂

immortalcrown:
Dem too dey deceive demself.

If Christianity no be religion, na wetin e come be?

A waste of time

KnownUnknown:


I think this opinion does not make sense in light of the previous one. No one is born an atheist, theist, pantheist, or any other xxxtheist.
A child doesn’t know of anything called god until the concept is introduced.

budaatum was actually right when she said the below.

budaatum:


I was born an atheist, and after encountering those who believe in gods and then researching gods myself, I discovered all gods were created by human beings.

This made me appreciate the human intellect even more in fact, because, creating gods is an amazing feat indeed.

Anyone who has no idea about the concept of gods/deities is also an atheist.

There are different categories under atheism.
There is igtheism,
Apatheism,
Agnostic atheism, just like budaatum and yourself.
There is antitheist atheism. e.tc.

Therefore, everyone is born an atheist.

TenQ:

You can't but sink into the wormhole of your self delusion!

Please prove me wrong.

StillDtruth:


Did I not say that "it need not be True in real eyeity,"?

Secondly, the guy no get right to hang whatever e wan hang for him office? Who get right enter him house except God?

Make the bandits and invaders just talk say dem wan murder persin because dem get arm. If Asari put Peter picture for him office who go go dia?



I have. When your madness in God hatefulness was raging last year or so and I answered you and you could not answer back.



You are the ones wasting your time.

The aim of these threads has been long fulfilled and you people are just twisting and turning trying to find a way of re arguing it,

Aren't you a member of the justiciary system?

At the emboldened showed it's a waste of time to engage you on any discussion. Lol!

budaatum:


What are the implications of my phrase that you think I have not thought of?

Absolutely, nothing.

StillDtruth:


See Madness!

Like atheism is a genetic and hereditary comdition babies are born with! Atheists and lies and madness, woman and satan.

You were born an atheist too(No child was born believing in God). Your environment taught the ideology of the God you worship to you.
A child raised in a society filled with free thinkers would never ever worship or believe in fairy things like God.

This is even common sense, but I guess people with a single digit IQ will never understand.

StillDtruth:


Dont get it mixed up. Your believe is your believe and it need not be True in real eyeity, for you can very well believe that Peter Obi is the preseident of Nigeria and no one can make you believe otherwise.

So, ir is not about your belief but what is True and what is proven

And i have proven God to you and other atheists and you could not give any valid answer, exactly what happened in these threads in proof of the existencr of spirit.

So, you atheists are left hanging on to whatever dreams you imagine or choose to imagine but the proof and Truth of God, is undisputably clearly seen and clear for all to see

This comedian is here again.

Believe does not affect reality.
If them born anybody papa well, make him go hang Peter Obi portrait for him office make he write The GCFR of Nigeria under am. Body go tell am.

You have not proven God to me o. Show me how you've proven God to me.

What is happening on this thread is basically a waste of human time. We have neither learnt anything new nor reached a reasonable submission.

As of today, May 1st, 2024. No one in the world, with statistically significant evidence has been able to scientifically proven the existence of spirits, so what are you on about?

budaatum:


All this is rather too long for me though good.

I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods because I know gods do not exist.

I was born an atheist, and after encountering those who believe in gods and then researching gods myself, I discovered all gods were created by human beings.

This made me appreciate the human intellect even more in fact, because, creating gods is an amazing feat indeed.

It's fascinating, but have you thought about the implications of your phrase, when you said. "I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods"?

TenQ:

You should know that I am a Disciple of Christ Jesus!

😂😂😂😂😂. Oh! That Roman Invented Dude.
He even said "Christ Jesus". 😂😂😂
Did the Bible teach you about the bigbang, abi you no believe the creation story?

TenQ:

So why are we talking when we can't even stick to the basic science we learned.


I don't appreciate when a person cannot be held accountable for his claims in speech and knowledge

What did the basic science that you learnt teach to you?
That before the bigbang there was no time?
That there were no physical laws before the bigbang?

Bring me a material, or refer me to a book that says otherwise to what I've answered you with.

I just answered you according to physics. Read all your physics materials and you will find the same thing in 'em.

Lemme ask you again.

What did the basic science that you learnt teach to you?

TenQ:

I think you are too much in a hurry:

TenQ . Don't pretend to not have seen my question.

Of which religion are you?

TenQ:

I think you are too much in a hurry:

Is this premise below fundamentally true?

Known Facts:
1. The Universe began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist

Well the thing is, no one knows. I mean the bigbang is still a theory and not a law. No one was really there to tell what happened.
We are only trying to make sense of things based on observations and Friedman and other mathematical equations.

Your question is more like a causality dilemma, the egg/hen paradox.

No scientist in the world can prove whether there were physical laws before the bigbang or whether they were simultaneously created alongside the universe.

Once upon a time, there was a singularity and this singularity was very hot and it was expanding and cooling very fast until it became what it is today. Well, interesting theory from our astrophysicists.

The answer to your question is. No one knows what really happened before the bigbang.

Time is imaginary, so some scientists agree that. Time must have been in existence even before the universe. That's why you see phrase such as "1 sec after the bigbang, the universe was..."

I repeat, no one knows.
Whether there was time, space and physical laws before the bigbang. We can't tell.

But after the bigbang at t=0. We are sure of matter, laws, principles and the continuation of time at t=0 + ∞.

TenQ:

I am sure you are aware that this is simply your CLAIM or OPINION and you have NO single Objective manner to prove that you are 100% correct.


I thing my post to you answerer ALL this?

Let's do a thought experiment.
Known Facts:
1. Life began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist

Lol! I was expecting this. As usual, the same arguments theists use to support their outlandish claim. 😂😂

Now lemme tell you where many theists lack critical reasoning.

In the grand calculus of the universe. If the level of entropy of the universe started decreasing and time started to move backwards. The space begins to shrink and everything goes back into the single entity before the big bang.
Let's call that single entity A. Alpha.

Now here is where I want to provoke your frontal lobe.

1. We can't establish the fact whether there was any other entity aside A. Alpha.

2. Even if there were other entities. Such entities can never have an established connection or relationship with A.Alpha and it's elements. How do I know this? The single entity A.Alpha exploded into nothingness and it has constantly be expanding.
The expansion of space time could only be possible if it's expands into nothing or it repels it's surrounding entities.

Therefore, anything that would have a relationship and connection with A.Alpha must had been within A.Alpha before the explosion since our universe is independently parallel. As there has not been any statistically significant evidence of any other universe.

Scientists only assume that, since we ourselves are in a universe, and we've seen it. Then if at all any other thing exists outside of our universe prolly other universe(s). Hence the multiverse postulate.
. So, It is erroneous, lugubrious, sadomasochistic, exasperating and the peak of academic embarrassment to assume that any other entity exists outside of our universe as anything other than other universes.

TenQ:

Proposition:
IF our Universe was created by an ENTITY, (a number of deductions are possible)
Deduction from Proposition and known Facts:

Please state the deductions from the propositions that you called FACTS. Otherwise, it would be a colossal waste of my time talking to you.

TenQ:

a. Such an Entity must be beyond TIME (for time did NOT exist yet) and exist beyond our time t=0

Such entity must be beyond time doesn't mean such entity cannot penetrate and manipulate time. Such entity that is responsible for the creation of time must be able to directly penetrate and manipulate it in real time without destroying the universe.

Therefore, this isn't an excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

b. Such and Entity must not be made up of MATTER (as matter did not exist yet)

"Must" is a very strong language.
Such entity must not be matter? You are talking like you know that "such Entity" face to face. You are confining the entity to the same rules you accuse atheists of confining it to.
Lol! Double standard De Nada


If such entity isn't made up of matter? Then such entity must be able to cause direct effects on matter. Since the entity is responsible for matter after all.

This is no excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

c. Such and Entity must not occupy SPACE (as SPACE did not exist yet) [/i]

Such entity must be able to penetrate into spacetime and alter it without destroying the fabric of spacetime. If you wrote a software, won't you know how to reprogram some functions without damaging the software?

This is no excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

Conclusion:
This mean that there is NO Experimental Technique or INSTRUMENT that can be used to Detect or View this Entity UNLESS the Entity make Himself known

There are things we don't have an idea of what they are but we can see their effects, connections and relationships with other things.

Even if this Entity decided to remain unknown. The fact that it remains uninteractive shows that it doesn't exist. It has no effect on anything.

It is a natural reasoning to know that it is absent.

Lemme ask you a question. How do you, I repeat. How do you know that there is such an ENTITY? Since you've never or no one has been able to detect it. Did you just assume there must be or that entity showed itself to you?

I need your response on this please.

How did your religion fathers get in contact with this so called God if he existed outside of our universe, since even science has not been able to contact anything outside of our own universe?

TenQ:

These above break down your premise leading to excuse that: Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence

Brother you are making me laugh.
The fundamental laws are universal laws. They are the laws of this universe.

Everything you wrote up there are things that are supposedly "happening" outside of this universe(outside of the A.Alpha and it's big bang and it's laws). You said before time, outside of matter and before space(These three are outside of our universe).

So my brother, you have not been able to break down any premise. I repeat again that the physical laws remain true for all observers at all frames of reference(When you truly understand this phrase, you will stop believing in the old wives' fables called deities and you will never debate me using physics anymore)

TenQ:

Of course, these are the reasons you cannot bring God into the laboratory. The Creator of the Universe exist in a realm and dimension different from ours

I didn't necessarily mean dragging God into a laboratory. I meant any scientific instrument that has been tested and verified to be absolutely efficient.

TenQ:

If this is your major claim, I am sorry, It doesn't hold water!

Eyyah! But I just subdued your counterattacks.

BTW, of which religion are you?

TenQ:

I asked you to read:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm

Later when I'm less preoccupied.

TenQ:

Your Question (Bolded):
God is the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything in the Physical Universe!

Were you there during the big bang? Did you see any first cause causing A.Alpha?
Couldn't another universe be a first cause and prolly our own universe is just a subset of the first cause universe?
Why must it have to be a God?

If a God could be the first cause, why couldnt A.Alpha be it's own first cause as well? At least none of us was there during the big bang.

Klinxmanz:
It's been a long time sir, hwfr, na ur loyal fs

Good morning, how are you doing champ?

TenQ:

I thus the position of you atheists is aptly summarised by exactly how I framed the definition

Atheists Preferred Definition of Tangible :
Any Identity or Nomenclature that Produces Effects on matter.

This include every reality or nomenclature that has either Mass, dimension or energy including identities like Magnetic fields, Electric Fields, Gravitational fields, Software, Logic, Mathematics, Information, Software, Consciousness etc.

Is your definition (which you consider as the dictionary definitions) not clearly taken care of with this description above?


You are the first Atheist on Nairaland who with admit to the highlighted in yellow. Ordinarily, Atheists on NL have judged Christians on the basis of the SUBJECTIVE nature of our spiritual experiences.



I hope I am hearing you correctly : Do you REJECT the Belief s that Deities exist or you Lack a Belief in any Deities?

I consider the Term: "Lacking a Belief in Deities" to be nonsensical at best.

Why do you think that the Physical Evidences you see around you for the existence of an Intelligent mind behind the Machine called the Earth with its content an insufficient?



I wrote about spatial dimensions a few months ago. You might want to read it up.

The summary is this:
If there was a Higher Dimension than our 3D space (Eg nD, where n>3). Would we be able to detect their presence with ANY instrument designed for our 3D space?
Can we even perceive the higher Dimension of Existence even if superimposed on our 3D existence?

Here it is:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm




As long as the definition of Tangible or Intangible will NOT be used by atheists when proposing their arguments against God.



1. The confluence of almost impossible stagaring statistical odds on the earth alone is enough reason to prove that an Unseen Intelligent Force is behind it.

2. The fact that consciousness seem to require a Pre-Programing (with data and instructions) is another logical proof for me. Have you noticed that all the faculties required for Consciousness require some level of consciousness?

3. The fact that we have very complex interdependent systems working for a particular objective is another logical proof for me.

4. The fact that the physical universe began about 13.8billion years ago from a point of singularity (when mass, space and time were simultaneously created) is a physical proof for me. What pushed the singularity out of a state of stability into the expansion we call the big bang? I say, that that did it must be outside space, time and matter: I call Him God

5. The fact that Entropy of the Universe is ALWAYS increasing is another physical proof for me. It tells me that our universe is NOT eternal: it will come to an end on day "Heat Death" is sure. The law of Entropy tells me that Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is IMPOSSIBLE : Meaning that the Universe couldn't have created itself

6. Best of ALL, my subjective EXPERIENCE of God the Creator that made me know Him as a reality.

Each one of these is a TOPIC of discussion in their own rights.


I think I have condensed the Definition enough for it to be UNAMBIGUOUS as long as we are not using the term as a figure of speech.



I think first of all, there are different kinds of Atheists
1. Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him
2. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an INTELLECTUAL point of view
3. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an EMOTIONAL point of view
4. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a CULTURAL/SOCIAL point of view
5. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a WANNABE ATHEIST point of view

Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him to me are the True Atheist : for they know exactly what they are doing. These are Never Agnostics, many combine a strong emotional feeling against God. You will find some of them still spiritual but this time their allegiance is to Satan and everything he entails.

Atheists who call themselves Agnostics are fooling themselves. On one side they claim THEY DON'T KNOW but on the other side, they firmly reject God the Creator.


Now, what is the problem of Atheists :
1. They replace the unseen God with science as final authority. The forget that science objective is to try to understand and explain what already exist
2. They assume God must be of a physical nature (so they expect to be able to see or measure him)
3. They assume that the laws of Physics and Chemistry is sufficient to describe the creation
4. They firmly oppose what they don't understand about the purpose of existence of man.
5. They refuse to comprehend that humans are perfect semblance to AI robots who are granted freewill.
6. They assume they know what a "Good God" should do with the earth and people in it.
7. They obviously do not know that there is a purpose for human existence.


If you ask me, these above are the weakness of the position of atheists.

I'm sorry. Everything you wrote were not needed at all.

Let's leave tangibility aside. Come at atheists head-on and don't loiter around the facts.

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.


1. The first prerequisite (the fundamental laws of existence sustaining true for all observers at all frames of reference)

• Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence. i.e,
i. They cannot be seen by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
ii. They cannot be heard by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
iii. They cannot be observed by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids)
iii. They do not have effects on things that everyone can observe, and they are not observable themselves (with or without laboratory aids). Therefore, they are not interactive.
iv. They are not perceptible(with or without laboratory equipments)
v. There is no physical law that supports the possibilities of the existence of deities.
vi. Deities cannot be subjected to any scientific procedure.

These above are what atheists say about deities.

The ideology of the existence of a God is even the most stupid thing ever. Like, what's a God?

Bongadu:
Women’s education is the most tightly corrected factor to the birth rate of a country. It’s an inverse relationship, by a lot.

Women should be educated to do nothing more advanced than multivariate algebra so they can calculate flower and sauce amounts better in the kitchen. They really don’t need anything more complex than that.

How does it benefit society to educate women to have careers? It doesnt. They should be mothers and homemakers.

Let's say there are 80Million women and 80million men in this country. Women are more gainfully employed than men. The only area where are leading is in the area that requires physical strength and endurance. Like tunnel digging, mechanism, brick laying, weldering and e.t.c.

But you see office work? Women have by far upper hand.
Therefore on the average, men work more than women but women get rewarded more than men. The percentage of rich women are by far more than rich men, but men are always the richest.

What am I trying to say? A man is expected to provide for his home but the man is unable to secure a job because some random woman has gotten the employment that a man should.
There is no gender equality when it comes to providing, but there is gender equality when it comes to the authority we have at home.

Women have not made any significant contribution to human existence up until this very civilization. They've made it worse.
Their education is basically a waste of time and resources. The only thing they are good at is to birth offsprings.

DonroxyII:
A woman is not Second to Man ... She is a Patner in Progress in the advancement of the course of Humanities!

This your Stupidities belongs to the last centuries, With Your IQ, You should be locked in a Reserved Dudgeon built Underneath Maximum Security Prison Inside the Atlantic Ocean so You can totally be deleted from Civilisations!

Madman .... Na people like you go see women skirt release hot akamu before even entering the place !

A woman is a Patner to Man Not "Second" !

I would have said something, but what could I possibly say to someone whose IQ is sending a notification "battery low, please charge".

Now read what you write slowly and see if your father would be proud of you.

FitCorper:

The one practiced here is purely misogyny.

Is there a problem with misogyny?
Because it's very evident that it's not a crime according to The Nigerian Constitution.

It's a known fact that 21st century women are totally useless to men. But soft dog-like men who are always looking for love and romance like someone under a generational curse will always see a need for 21st century women in their lives. Gender that brings nothing but distraction and misery into the lives of men.

How some of you even cope with women that are not your relatives around you remains a mystery to me. I'd prolly vomit until I pass out.

TenQ:

It seems you have lost yourself in the maze of discusion.
Yes, I defined Tangibles in terms of Mass, Dimension (length, Area and Volume) and Energy and of course these can relate with time.

BUT,
I discovered that many of you atheists would rather define the word [b]Tangible broadly as Any IDENTITY that produces Effect on matter:[/b] meaning that in addition to Examples from my definition of Tangible, it consists of Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Gravitational Fields, Information, Mathematics, Logic, Software and Consciousness as they all fall under this category of Tangible things.

NOW,
I have adopted your definition AND I ONLY ask you to be consistent with this Definition
This has now become a problem for you!

It seems you don't want an OBJECTIVE definition of the word "Tangibles": how do you now want us to TEST your beliefs? This is insincerity on your part!

Not at all. I'm consistent with the definition of tangible.
You are the one who is trying to lead a witness thru projection.
I remember I said it in one of your threads that there are different kinds atheists.
The only thing that is common to all atheists is that we reject the believes that deities exist.

What would make anyone an atheist is very subjective. A personal realization. So, atheists don't have a code of conduct or constitutional obligations. As long as you reject the beliefs of the existence of deities. You are welcome.

Therefore, no atheist shoulders the responsibility of defending the opinion of another atheist, unless if he agreed to such opinion himself.

If you're really interested in testing my beliefs. You should ask me why I personally reject the beliefs that deities exist.

Let's assume(just an assumption) there are real things that are not perceptible by any natural sense or with laboratory aids. Can anyone be sure such things are deities? Evidently No.

So whether some atheists believe in tangible or intangible things is not a fundamental ground in the league of atheists.

If a God existed. It would never be a topic of debate. A God that needs people to defend his existence is basically not a God. It's more of a fairy.

Due to the ambiguity of the word "Tangible". I maintain the dictionary meaning.

Having this in mind. Shall we begin proper?

If I agreed to everything you've said about tangible and about what atheists say.

Now, pray, please tell me what you think atheists have done wrong or where you think we are getting it wrong.

This should be the thesis for our discussion.Enchante

TenQ:

My OBJECTIVE was to show that:
1. There are Real EXISTENCE that are Tangible
2. There are Real EXISTENCE that are NOT Tangible

The only thing I refuse to reconcile with is your subjective definition of tangible as things that can only be measured with regards to mass, dimension and time. This has it's implications.

The moment you tried to solve a challenge, you raised another. You are only viewing dimension in it's spatial extent, physical properties and coordinates and structures of object.
Dimension means many things and different things in different discipline of knowledge. It is different in geometry, it is different in algebra, it is different in computing and in physics.

Even in physics, dimension is used differently in different topics.

Dimension doesn't have to always be directly proportional to physical properties.

Velocity has a dimension. Velocity is not a physical phenomenon. But the dimension of velocity is equal to the dividence of length by time.

Therefore, abstract things and ideologies also have dimensions.

It is possible to say "This is the height of foolishness". But foolishness doesn't have any physical properties to measure.

I don't even need to talk about the concept of time for time itself will fail me.

Therefore, I cannot agree with your notion. I maintain a neutral position until you can show me one thing that is not truly tangible in any form.

NairaLTQ:

I can sir! None has either Mass, energy or dimension. None of these is "touchable" nor do they reflect any form of light.

You are making this debate tire me. I swr.
Gravity and electromagnetic are physical concepts. Mathematics on the other hand is more of an empirical concept (i.e concrete and abstract).

That is, they need elongated part of transcriptions for their propagation.
Information is physical and abstract at the same time.
When you drive on the road and there is a sign ahead. You can see the sign with your eyes. Therefore you understand. When someone tells something to you in a language you are familiar with. You can hear and you'll understand.

But what happens when you do not understand the sign or the language that the information is being disseminated or when you can't understand mathematical equations?
They do not make sense to you. They do not trigger a consciousness, unless if accompanied by other factors.

This is what we mean by elongated part of transcription.

Consciousness simply resides in information. Without an information. If I removed the sensory nerve endings of your skin and someone tiptoes to touch you from the back. You'll probably not be conscious of the touch because the receptors that transmit signals to your brain are absent. Therefore, there can't be that consciousness.

In all together, you need a trigger/source/application in other to see the effects of mathematics, consciousness and information. Lemme not even talk about softwares.

But for gravity. Whether you understand it or not. Once you fall, you must definitely hit the ground, you do not need to apply it to see it's effect.

I think you really need to understand elementary physics, not just read. By then, we'd have a more coherent conversation.

With the few conversations that I've had with thiests on this platform. It further strengthens my beliefs that many of you believe such absurdities basically because you don't understand simple physics and science in general.

The few theists off-NL who understand science are too scared of hell or are simply just deluded.

NairaLTQ:

Experience show us that Consciousness is Real. By the definition of causing EFFECTS on biological bodies, it falls under the term TANGIBLE!

You are wrong!
Consciousness has no causalities.

NairaLTQ:

Are you worried that your definition of Tangible meaning having effects is proving vague?


I am on point : your definition of terms must be seen to be consistent and applicable to other things

Point of correct. There is no such thing as "My definition".
Let's stick to the dictionary meanings of words.

NairaLTQ:

I guess you speak of yourself!

Nope! For myself.

NairaLTQ:

And then you refuse to let us know exactly what you mean by tangible.

You brought tangible to our door step. The burden of explanation rests on you.

NairaLTQ:

When relating with Christians: you want tangible to be with measurable mass or energy or dimensions

Kindly, show me where I said that.

TenQ:

For Clarity, do you admit and stand the definition:

Position 1:
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

Do you fully agree or abide by this definition of Tangible?

You can't put gravitational field and electromagnetic field within the same category as mathematics, Logic and consciousness.
Unlike the latters, they do not need any elongated part of transcription and they are physical phenomena.

Information is on the line.

@the emboldened, are you by any means implying that you consider consciousness to be tangible based on the effects of it's "cause and effect"?

You see why you and I don't agree on many things. You are not always very careful of your choice of terms.

Brother, please go straight to the point. You can't hornswoggle atheists with these skulduggeries.

TenQ:

Good for you.

You can observe that discussion between us is formal, professional and devoid of insults.
This is how to chat meaningfully!

I guess babysitting ignorance is being professional. 😂😂

TenQ:

You are mostly doing your best to make the definition of tangible as un-objective as you can.

How? un-objective as how?
What are you even talking 'bout?

TenQ:

When you ask for evidences from CHristians, aren't you looking for a Tangible Evidence?

Tangible and Relatable proofs

StillDtruth:


For you to say "on this threaad" already.proves you confess that you people Lie and are liars.

Show me one place and shop whining like a fledgling.

TenQ:

Neptune also existed ever before we knew how to use Kepler's Laws.
Secondly, the point is that
Our Ignorance of the Tangibility of a Reality has nothing to do with its existence.
That is:
An Object's reality or tangibility is NOT determined by our knowledge of it.



All I needed was an objective way by which an Atheist Determine what is REAL and what is TANGIBLE! And if Realities exist which are NOT Tangible.

With your Definitions, we can apply it to the SOUL/SPIRIT and by the rule of consistency determine if your position make sense of not.

Unfortunately, getting your folks to commit to definitions of a simple word like Tangibility had been an impossible task. This was why I presented the Two Definitions of the word Tangible!

Without a concrete commitment to definitions, we go nowhere!


Forget the word Divine for now: At least we would agree that SOMEONE probably from another Planet or Galaxy Programmed it.

For now, this is sufficient: as we will not conclude that the Device Programmed itself


I think the problem occurs when a person seem to say that AI's in machines evolved without any human input. There evidence is that AI's seem to be able to learn from data they acquire from remote sources.

About Consciousness:
1. For a system to be conscious, it must have a way to feel (not sense) the environment
2. It must be able to logically or emotionally choose or reject the stimulus causing the feeling
3. It must be able to take a decision either to have more of the stimulus or have less of the stimulus
4. The implication of 3 is that it has to be able to modify its attribute to achieve what it thinks is best for itself.
This I think is the minimum requirement for consciousness to exist. You will notice something queer with these four postulates: they all are based on the system being in the first place at least nominally conscious!

Its a circular requirement: another evidence that consciousness may be a gift from outside our physical world




1. A subjective Truth or Experience is a REAL only to the One who perceived the Knowledge.
2. The fact that the rest of us did NOT partake in this subjective Experience does not change the TRUTH of his experience: thus we can't conclude that the experience is FALSE as we have no objective basis to judge or falsify it.



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

Can you then give me just ONE example of ANYTHING by which you know that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible.


In science, if your explanation is NOT Certain or Definite, its called a theory and thus subject to being replaced by a better explanation (which is only relative to the last explanation)

That is : with respect to creation, the best science can do is to replace their last explanation with a better explanation and it doesn't falsify the initial premise that the Universe was created.

The problem is bigger than you think ma:
We cannot probe beyond 13.8 Billion years ago: because time, space, matter and all the laws of chemistry and physics break down at time t=0. To know if the universe was created, we need to peak beyond time t=0 and we can't.


Because the rules of mathematics were discovered by us: it has nothing to do with mass, space , time or energy. Mathes are just assembly of computational and analytical truths


Logics applied to the Universe make sense but it will still be true if there was not universe: there would simply not be anything with which to test the validity.


Infinite regress of Cause and Effect break the law of Entropy:
This is why physics ay that some several thousand billion years away the universe will cease to exist and its temperature gradient will be zero everywhere.


Cause and Effect happens in our world and experience: so we understand it.

I think even the fish understands it: "If I don't flee, this shark will eat me up!"



The Universe began at about 13.8 Billion years ago and since then, we have been having cause-effect in motion. SInce it has a beginning, cause-effect cannot be indefinite: It's just common sense!



If atoms and molecules don't evolve, how did they suddenly began to evolve in DNA of cells?



Here we agree perfectly: and especially your last sentence!

So, we say as Christians that Extra-Terrestials had a hand in our existence: but atheists say by implication that: "the universe created itself" and "everything begins and end with us"


Rolling on the floor with laughter!
The miracle of the eye is super-complex!



Like someone says:
Given enough time of random re-arrangement of data on the HDD of a Machine, Windows 10 can come into existence.

Its not a question of Faith here but just simple Logic and Truth!

I for like put mouth but make e no be like I dey like form I too know.
Make I just respect myself.

StillDtruth:


That is atheists for you.

They are Lies and Like Lies! Very unstable and heavily unreliable like politicians.

Evil spirits who attack from the air and disappear when you go after them.

Thank God that one day He is going to put all of them in the everlasting furnace.

Lol! You wish. You what? You wish.

Meanwhile. Pray, tell one place where we have told a lie on this thread so far.

TenQ:

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.

I didn't broaden shit. I was only upholding the meaning.

TenQ:

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

Not tangible by sense of touch but tangible by facts and value.

TenQ:

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!

I remain consistent. So what do you have up your sleeve?

TenQ:

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.

Why would it not be favourable to me?