"Chess trains logical thinking. It teaches how to make decisions, trains memory, strengthens will power, motivates children to win, and teaches them how to deal with defeat. It’s the only school subject that can do all of this."

https://en.chessbase.com/post/why-che-should-be-required-in-us-schools-170413

What do you guys think?

chiboyo:
@uche40, are you following the candidates?

Who do you think would win?

I am rooting for Hikaru though

Hi, this is uche40.

I didn't start early but I'm currently watching the recaps on GothamChess YouTube channel.

Childish Gambino - Human Sacrifice


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFtDbLUaNPQ&pp=ygUgY2hpbGRpc2ggZ2FtYmlubyBodW1hbiBTYWNyaWZpY2U%3D

Ashirioluwa:


He is expressing his gratitude to everyone who have prayed for him.

It seems that you haven't seen or heard of anyone who underwent surgery at the best hospital with the best physicians, only to pass away during or after the procedure.

My friend, God alone is worthy of all praise.

So thanking the skilled surgeons who spent years honing their craft is out of the question? Did your god outsource creation?

assholemods:

When people read without comprehension this is the type of comment you get. A five year old will not make this type of comment after reading the post. What a shame!

Maybe you can actually point out the fallacy in his statements instead of slinging playground insults?

Looks interesting. I'll keep tabs on it.

haybhi1:
Hello, intelligentsia. Welcome back. How're doing, Jessie? Did you not stress out while away?

Intelligentsia? LOL. You give me too much credit.

I've been well, by the way. Just been preoccupied with work. Thanks for asking.

StillDtruth:


Which space?

A rock.hurtling through our space on earth has a cause, in all books and (you and i aint seen.a rock flying through the space outside the earth and even if it did, it would definitely have a cause because rocks dont fly on their own, hoing by our own experoence on earth!

You're right, a rock hurtling through our atmosphere has a cause, but that's not the kind of space I'm talking about. I'm talking about the vast expanse of the cosmos, where celestial bodies and galaxies dance to the tune of gravity and physics. The "space" where stars and planets form, and yes, even rocks can hurtle through the void. The bit about rocks flying on their own is irrelevant. The point here is this: in that vast cosmic space, what constitutes a "cause"? Is it still a simplistic, human-defined concept, or does it become something more complex, more nuanced, more...cosmic?

TenQ:

It is simple logic ma.
When we see an interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, we thing that it was from an INTELLIGENT Mind.

Even something as small as a Pen cannot be other than by an intelligent mind irrespective of how we argue that it somehow evolved from the earth's basic elements.

I look with one eye at anyone who thinks that complex interdependent assembly of systems having a unified function, is not a proof of an intelligent mind.

The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself. We're still figuring out how the natural world works, and that's fine. But the fact that you think you can just hastily fill in the gaps with some spurious theory of a divine maker that you pulled out of your ass doesn't inspire a curious mind. It's just straight up complacency and resigned speculation on your part. And attributing human-like qualities (intelligence, mind) to an unknown entity is a fallacy of reification. We can't assume that the natural world operates according to human logic or design principles. Your argument from "interdependent assembly of systems" is a form of the "watchmaker analogy," which has been thoroughly debunked. Natural processes can give rise to complex systems through self-organization and evolution, as I mentioned earlier, or haven't you considered the possibility that the natural world operates according to its own principles and laws, without the need for a designer? It doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence vs unintelligence. That's a false dichotomy. And if you really think that everyone believes that the universe was created by an intelligent mind, then that's just a reflection of your own biases. It's not a logical conclusion. It's a classic case of "argumentum ad populum" -- assuming that because many people believe something, it must be true.

Abiogenesis may explain synthesis of basic Amino Acids but it doesn't explain the CODE written in the assembly called DNA.

Example:
Having infinite times to juggle several sets all the Alphanumeric English characters, can the resulting string of letters
1. Form a sentence like "The rain in Spain Falls mainly in the Plain"
2. How you you think the Receptor even understood "this English" and knows how to Read?


Do you concur that : The DNA code is NOTHING( random noise) if the Receptor cannot decode the meaning (instructions and data) of the code!

This is ridiculous. The synthesis of amino acids is relatively unimpressive if you juxtapose it to the real magic which happens when these building blocks start interacting, self-organizing, and evolving into more complex structures. Yes, the DNA code is a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, but at the end of the day, it is still merely a product of these interactions -- a natural consequence of chemical and physical processes, so I'm afraid I can't share your curious fascination with it. Using letters and numbers to talk about all the possible combinations is far from a perfect proposition. Those jumbled letters might not form a sentence like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain," but that's because it's a human language with set rules. DNA is a molecule that's been around for billions of years, specifically designed to store and pass on genetic information -- so your example doesn't even come close. As for the "receptor" you referred to, it is simply the cellular machinery that has co-evolved with DNA. It's a biochemical system that recognizes and interprets the chemical structure of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. There's no conscious understanding of English or any language involved, it's all based on chemistry.

TenQ:

Of course, a belief is not just a random selection of a position, it is usually a basis for which the decision is made.
1. No one Beleives that 1+4 is 5, we know that 1+4 is five because there is no other possibilities other than this answer.

2. No one can truly say, "I know that this Boy will be Alive by next year December" even if the Doctors just gave him a clean bill of health and the probability is exceptionally high

Ok. So what about scientific theories like gravity? We can't directly observe an invisible force pulling objects together, but the evidence is overwhelming. Countless experiments, from dropping apples to orbiting satellites, all point towards gravity's existence. It's a well-tested and highly predictive theory, even if we can't definitively "know" it in the same absolute way we know 1 + 4 = 5. This perfectly highlights the spectrum of knowledge in science. Facts, like basic mathematical equations, are generally considered irrefutable truths. Theories, on the other hand, are constantly evolving explanations for natural phenomena. They're built on mountains of evidence and tested predictions, but they're always open to revision if new data arises. It is true that we can't predict the future with certainty, so we can't "know" the boy in your second example will be alive next December, even with a decent health bill. But let's not pretend that ultimately, we wouldn't still base our decisions on medical diagnoses and statistical probabilities due to the confidence we have in them. I hope you can see how blurry the distinction gets. It's not a binary choice between absolute knowledge and blind belief.

It is based on probabilities from informed science.

Probabilities, not certainties. And "informed science" is just a fancy way of saying "educated guess".

You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

Wow. I mean, bless your heart for trying to spin that around. Did you miss the part where I argued for the absence of belief, not the existence of the opposite? Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all. Possessing reasons for disbelief doesn't equate to holding a belief itself. My reasons for disbelief in a deity stem from a lack of verifiable evidence, a world seemingly at odds with an all-powerful, benevolent being, and science offering a compelling narrative for the universe's existence. The absence of a belief in a creator doesn't equate to the presence of a belief in its non-existence. It's simply the state of not being convinced based on the available information. I appreciate the enthusiasm on your part but perhaps a quick reread of my post would be in order before you fall headlong into a pile of your own shit.

Based on the faulty assumption that the Creator of the Universe must be made of Matter and Energy.
Hypothetically, if the Creator exists and he made the Universe at about 13.8 billion years ago when there was no atom, do you think such a Creator will be made of atoms and you can "measure him" with the current laws of Physics and Chemistry?

A poor dodge. So you're saying the creator is somehow beyond the reach of our scientific tools because it's not made of matter and energy? I'll admit that's a convenient excuse, but it's not a serious argument. If your creator is beyond detection, how can you be so sure it exists in the first place? And if it's beyond our understanding, how can you attribute human-like qualities like creation and intention to it?

Another misconception: All-Good Deity: relative to who?
Tell me: When you pour a disinfectant into your toilet bowl and kill off 10 million bacteria struggling to find sustenance for themselves , are you EVIL?

You're missing the key difference here: intention. I take out the trash because I don't want my home to reek of horrible odours. The bacteria, bless their tiny hearts, were just trying to live their best single-celled life. Your all-powerful deity, on the other hand, is supposedly aware of all suffering and has the power to stop it. Yet, according to you, he chooses to let it happen. I hope you took notice of the operational terms I emboldened. Now I'll give you the floor to explain how that squares with the concept of an all-good being. I'm interested to hear your defense because frankly, this whole "bacteria cleansing" scenario you manufactured feels more like a flimsy attempt to deflect from valid criticisms. You're not making a theological argument here, as far as I can tell.

Based on the faulty assumption that Science has an answer for EVERYTHING!
Is this true?

It's a demonstrable fact that the quest for knowledge through scientific inquiry, though imperfect, surely surpasses blind faith in ancient myths.

Again:
I have shown you that JUST because you have reasons, you CANNOT Lack a Belief in the existence or inexistence of the Creator. You actually have a supporting argument to support your bias
You just successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: you actually have REASONS. Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

This ridiculousness has been addressed above. The only thing I've proven is that logic takes a two-step, not a victory lap.

Will you agree to the proposition that"
Every position of Belief is either FOR or AGAINST a position!

False. You're misapplying the law of the excluded middle. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that beliefs are not always binary or mutually exclusive. Many beliefs exist on a spectrum, like shades of gray, rather than absolute black or white and some of these beliefs might be orthogonal, unrelated, or even contradictory to others, defying a simple FOR/AGAINST dichotomy. It would be outrageous of you to flippantly disregard the context, experience, and nuances that influence many beliefs. Furthermore, some beliefs might be provisionally held, pending further inquiry or evidence, rather than being rigidly FOR or AGAINST. So the fact that you think that beliefs can somehow be neatly categorized into binary oppositions is just you demonstrating a staggering lack of understanding of the very thing you're attempting to analyze.

Apologies for the long wait. If I hadn't kept this tab open, I might have completely forgotten this thread.

TenQ:

You have a way of reading unintended meanings into simply stated facts.
I said:
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.

This is just a simply stated fact and it is NOT saying that Things are REAL because we are in ignorance of it. I have not also inferred that "our understanding of it is irrelevant to its nature."

Please understand this: science doesn't deal with absolute, unknowable realities. It deals with EVIDENCE, with observations that help us understand the universe, and right now the evidence points towards a universe that functions perfectly well without a divine creator. So even if your statements may be technically true in a philosophical sense, they still don't come close to addressing the specific issue of a god's actual existence.

I laugh in Urhobo Language:
Atheists usually challenge Christians with the phrases such as
"Show us EVIDENCE......!"
or
"Extraordinary Claim require Extraordinary Evidence!"

I'm sorry, but demanding evidence for extraordinary claims isn't some atheist conspiracy, it's just basic logic.

All I am doing is to FORCE Atheists to say the kind of evidence that will be an objective proof to them.
Hence, I want Atheists to tell me
1. Exactly what they consider as REAL (Existence)
2. And the Question "Is every Existence Tangible?"
3. What is their Definition of Tangible.

"Force Atheists"? Now, I'm curious. Did you just open this thread to get people to indulge in your puerile "gotcha!" game, or do you have intentions of making honest inquiry? Some terms you are citing here are mostly irrelevant. Take "tangibility" for example. We deal with things like dark matter and radio waves, both very real but not exactly cuddle-material. Tangible is for textures. I'd rather focus on verifiable evidence. If you told me you could fly, I wouldn't demand a specific type of proof, I'd just ask you to, well, fly. Same principle applies here. Show me something mind-bending, universe-altering, and then maybe we can talk about "objective proof."

Without a CONCRETE and OBJECTIVELY Defined testable definition of a word like Tangible , every discussion will miss the Road.

This is why it seems I am "all too eager to pin all atheists down with definitions" LOL!

Since you want to play "define everything" so badly, then I guess we both need to define "concrete" and "objectively" too. Shouldn't be fuzzy at all, right?

But Mars is presently un-occupied by any intelligent life: would we conclude that "the device evolved form the Martian earth"?
I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it was brought to Mars by some intelligent creatures

Are we assuming Martians are nature's engineers now? Because unless this device builds furniture and writes haiku, I think "evolved" might be a bit of a stretch.

I was not defining consciousness. I was only stating that the minimum capabilities an Existence must have before it can be deemed as conscious. If you check, I also noted that these criteria are circular: Like saying for an object to be conscious, it must have some minimum level of consciousness.

It is easy to test each of the postulates!

Let's say we're exploring the building blocks of consciousness. I posit that testing your postulates might be easier said than done. How do we objectively measure a subjective experience like "feeling the environment"? And even if we could, wouldn't that just be measuring the physical processes behind it?

All I am saying is that Jessica.Rabbit cannot prove that I did not dream of eating Dinner with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. QED!
Why?
It is my subjective EXPERIENCE and not yours.

Of course, only me can know is my report is TRUE or FALSE!

You may not believe me, but you have no way of objectively proving that my dream wasn't a true statement.

Subjective experiences like these dreams can be analyzed through a more objective lens. They could actually tell us something about you, your interests, and maybe even your anxieties. But to claim they represent some absolute truth, well, that's where things get a little dicey.

Therefore, I made it practical by asking IF you have any real EXAMPLE of an infinite regress of cause and effect.

You did not confirm my statement that:
The Law of Entropy forbids infinite Regress of Cause and Effect especially if you note that the Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago AND the Universe will not exist forever in a situation called "heat death" where entropy of the Universe will be maximum.

Better still, if the Entropy of the Universe is increasing, it proves that Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

You should be careful not to conflate thermodynamic entropy with casual chains. Increase in entropy only signifies a growing uniformity in energy distribution throughout time. It doesn't forbid infinite regress -- a completely philosophical (not physical) concept -- at all. Physics tells us about the behavior of the universe, but it doesn't dictate the rules of logic or metaphysics. The universe having a beginning doesn't inherently negate the possibility of an infinite regress in a logical sense; it just means our universe had a starting point in its current form. So, while the heat death might put a damper on future cosmic shenanigans, it doesn't logically preclude an infinite regress. It's like saying because the party ends at midnight, there couldn't have been an infinite number of songs on the playlist. The playlist's potential infinity isn't limited by the party's curfew.

Theories are explanations we give for the observable effects we see. I do not condemn it:. I am just saying that a theory is falsifiable with another better theory or law.

You're still dancing around the maypole of semantics here. The beauty of scientific theories is precisely their falsifiability. It's what makes science so dynamic and self-correcting. Unlike dogma, science welcomes challenges and revisions. It thrives on them. However, a theory being falsifiable doesn't make it flimsy or unreliable. It makes it robust. It's like building a bridge that can withstand earthquakes: it's designed to adapt and survive new data, not crumble at the first tremor of doubt. I should probably remind you as well that laws and theories in science play different roles. Laws describe the patterns we observe; theories explain why those patterns exist. Newton's law of universal gravitation tells us that objects attract with a force directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. But it was Einstein's theory of general relativity that explained the "why" by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. So, when you simply say a theory is an explanation for observable effects, you might be selling it short. It's the best explanation we have that fits all the current evidence. And if a new theory comes along that explains the evidence better, then huzzah! Science marches on, and our understanding deepens.

What I was saying in other words is: Even if no humans existed in the world, 1+3 will still be 4.
Mathematics exist regardless of whether we know it or not.

Without a conscious entity to perform the act of counting, does 1, 3 or 4 have any actual meaning? These are not just symbols but concepts that require a mind to define their relationships. In a universe devoid of consciousness, there would be no 1 apple plus 3 apples equals 4 apples because there would be no concept of "apple", let alone 1 or 4. To say that mathematics exists independently of us is to imbue these abstract concepts with a sort of mystical autonomy they simply do not possess.

Does LOGIC require humans to be TRUE?
This is the question.

Of course not! However, even the sturdiest instruction manual needs a machine to operate on. That's my point. Stop making me repeat myself please.

It has everything to do with it ma.
If the Universe will come to an End and entropy becomes maximum: will cause an effect still take place?
Of course the answer is NO!

Wrong. The law of entropy doesn't negate the concept of infinite regress; it merely describes the behavior of energy in a closed system. If we reach maximum entropy, we're talking about a state of equilibrium, not the cessation of all processes.

Of cause, I am not comparing humans and fishes: I am just stating that even animals understand (at their level cause and effect)

Fair enough. So, tell me, does your toaster understand cause and effect when it pops after sufficiently browning your bread? Or is it just divinely ordained toast?

I believe we've trashed this out!

Where? As far as I can tell, you're only retreating to the comfort of "...we've trashed this out!", which is pretty much the universal euphemism for "I've run out of arguments and logic, but I still want to sound profound!" in debates. But if you insist, then we can just agree to disagree, and I'll let the universe's weirdness and non-conformist nature have the final say.

My point is that Atoms and Molecule is the building blocks of any cell: at what point did they acquire data nad instructions.

They don't hold coding bootcamps for atoms, my dear. Their properties are fundamental, not programmed.

And what is your objective proof of this?

Why don't we start with the fact that the universe was around for about 9 billion years before Earth even formed, and humans only popped up in the last minute of the cosmic day. If we were the main event of the entire program, it seems the universe had quite a lot of time to kill, doesn't it? To be honest, while scientists are still working out the kinks in the theory that the universe creates itself, I personally think it's a far more plausible scenario than thinking a cosmic extraterrestrial with a penchant for humanoids decided to sprinkle a little stardust here and not on the other billion galaxies. Talk about playing favorites.

Exactly like someone saying emphatically
"The computer chip and all the hardware are products of the earth and therefore, it requires no intelligent being (computer engineers and programmers) to make it work"

LOL!

This comparison would only hold water if the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection. Unfortunately for you, that's not how computer chips are made.

You have just stated clearly that an INTELLIGENT mind is behind the functions of the computer up to the Windows 10.

Perhaps. But it does nothing for your argument.

Aemmyjah:


You want to compare a rock in space to the universe
Who or what made that 'rock'?

The rock's existence doesn't necessitate a 'who' or 'what'; it's a product of natural processes, like planetary formation. Similarly, the universe's existence might not require a 'who' or 'what' either.

TenQ:

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.

But 1+5=6 is a mathematical fact, verifiable through empirical evidence and logical reasoning! It's not a belief, but a knowledge claim based on objective evidence. The distinction between knowing and believing is not as clear-cut as you suggest. Beliefs can be informed by evidence and reasoning, just like knowledge claims. In fact, many scientific theories, like evolution or gravity, are considered knowledge claims, yet they are open to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges. Moreover, the notion that beliefs are only held when there's uncertainty is misguided. Beliefs can be held with varying degrees of confidence, and they can be based on a range of factors, including evidence, experience, and values. It's not a binary choice between knowledge and belief. Your argument also implies that beliefs are inherently uncertain, while knowledge claims are not. However, even scientific knowledge claims are subject to some degree of uncertainty, as they are based on current evidence and understanding.

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.

I see. So, economic forecasts are like prayers -- you hope for the best, but ultimately, it's out of your hands! Except instead of a divine plan, it's just a bunch of humans making stuff up and hoping for the best. Got it!

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

Easy.

(1) Despite extensive searches, no credible evidence directly supports the existence of a deity.

(2) If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity existed, it's unclear why suffering, injustice, and evil persist.

(3) Science and reason adequately explain the world's workings without requiring a supernatural creator.

There you go!

TenQ:

And from a purely logical point of view, Christians look at the Universe and look at the multiple interdependent systems (especially on the earth) and come to a conclusion: This is a Product of an Intelligent Designer. And because the Interdependent systems are so huge and complex, we say that the intelligent Designer is Alien to this Universe.

Life on earth seems not to be purely an accident because of the statistical improbabilities that stack up for the creation of LIFE. Everything from Carbon Cycle, Water Cycle, Energy Cycle, Reproduction, Intelligence, Intuition etc tell us that this is not chaos ordering itself ( note: All these cycles need Energy to propergate)

This is misguided reasoning at best. I fail to understand how it makes any lick of sense for you to equate human-designed objects to the natural world. The pen, a product of human intelligence, has a clear purpose and function, whereas the universe and its components don't have an inherent "purpose" or "design" in the same way. You're imposing human-centric thinking onto the natural world in what I can only term a textbook display of short-sightedness. Plus, science has shown us that systems can arise from natural processes, like evolution and self-organization. The carbon cycle, water cycle, and energy cycle are all explicable through scientific inquiry, without invoking a designer. The origin of life on Earth is a complex problem, but that doesn't mean we need to default to a supernatural explanation. Science has made significant progress in understanding abiogenesis, and while there's still much to uncover, it's not a justification for inserting a divine creator. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that statistical improbability is simply insufficient as evidence for a designer?

Using the term "alien" to describe the supposed designer is a clever rhetorical device, but it's a euphemism for "we don't understand it, so God did it." That's not a logical conclusion; it's a cop-out.

Evolution starts with one big FLAW: It starts with LIFE already existing and then EVOLVING from one state into another.
The Question truly is
1. If the DNA contains information (data and instructions), given all the letters of the alphabet that can be juggled up in an infinite number of times, can we expect to see a sentence like
"THE RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY IN THE PLAIN!"
2. Even if we assume the above is a possibility (given the infinite amount of time), the problem that occurs now is "How will the Information Above be Decoded"!? Without Intelligence from the Receptor, the phrase "THE RAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY IN THE PLAIN!" is just another random set of meaningless sequence of characters.
That is: If the Target of the sequence of code does not UNDERSTAND English and the English Alphanumeric characters, the phrase even though is a valid statement will be Gibberish



Is Snowflakes a kind of system? What is its function?
Yes, it is beautiful, but for what purpose?
The Snowflakes is not different from a meteorite moving in space!

Every System has a Purpose or Function!

Evolution doesn't start with the assumption that life already exists. I don't know where you got that from. It explains how life arose from non-living matter through abiogenesis. The scientific consensus is clear: life emerged around 3.5 billion years ago, and evolution has been shaping its diversity ever since. As for the DNA information argument, you're only just comparing apples and oranges. DNA is not a human language; it's a molecular code that operates according to its own rules. The sequence of nucleotides determines the genetic information, not human comprehension. The decoding process occurs through cellular machinery, like ribosomes and transcription factors, which don't require "intelligence" or understanding of human language. Snowflakes play a crucial role in Earth's water cycle and weather patterns, and their intricate patterns arise from the natural process of crystallization, not a designed purpose. Comparing snowflakes to meteorites is a false equivalence because one is a natural, terrestrial phenomenon, while the other is an extraterrestrial object. Your assertion that every system has a purpose or function is a teleological assumption, not a scientific fact. Systems can arise from natural processes without a predetermined purpose. The human eye, for example, evolved to detect light and perceive the environment, but it didn't have a "purpose" before its emergence.

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.

Well, you nicely summarized the point, but you still managed to miss a crucial distinction yet again. Yes, Neptune existed before we knew about it, just like electrons. But, my friend, that was never my point. My point is that Neptune was a predicted entity within an existing framework (Kepler's Laws), whereas electrons introduced a fundamentally new concept (subatomic particles) to explain novel phenomena (electromagnetic interactions). Your second point is a classic example of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Just because our ignorance of something doesn't disprove its existence, it doesn't mean that our understanding of it is irrelevant to its nature. In science, our understanding and description of a phenomenon can indeed shape our understanding of its reality. Just so we're clear, I'm not saying reality is solely determined by our knowledge, but our knowledge (or lack thereof) can influence how we perceive and describe reality. Let's not conflate the two.

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!

From what I can see here, it seems you're all too eager to pin all atheists down with definitions, and set a trap with your so-called "tangibility", but you're forgetting that definitions are actually meant to clarify, not confine. And let's be real, the concept of tangibility is far more nuanced than a simple binary definition can capture. You really want an objective way to determine what's real and tangible? I gave you a nuanced view that accounts for the complexity of existence. You can't reduce the richness of reality to a single definition or criterion. And as for the soul/spirit, let's not conflate the lack of empirical evidence with the possibility of existence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's also not evidence of presence.

By the way, I take exception to your ridiculous attempt at trying to undermine my personal perspective with your "you folks" generalization. Please understand that I'm not responsible for the vagaries of language or the inconsistencies of others. I'm here to engage in a thoughtful discussion, not to be held hostage by semantic absolutism. Let's focus on the substance of the debate, not the definitions. After all, it's the ideas that matter, not the labels we attach to them.

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

While I agree that finding a device on Mars would suggest an intelligent origin, I still say we should not jump to conclusions. We can't assume that "someone" from another planet or galaxy programmed it simply because we can't fathom how it came to be.

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

This is just you trying to sneak in a metaphysical explanation for consciousness, unsurprisingly. You're attempting to redefine consciousness with your four postulates, but unfortunately, they're still plagued by the same circular reasoning and ambiguity. So first you talked about feeling the environment. Notice how you blur the lines between sensing and feeling. Sensing is a physical process, while feeling implies a subjective experience. We need to distinguish between these two. You also talk about logical or emotional choices, but the criterion you cited is too vague. Even simple machines can make decisions based on programming or algorithms. It doesn't imply consciousness. Your point about
decision-making and attribute modification is just adaptability and learning, which can be observed in both living and non-living systems. It's not unique to conscious beings. In fact, your postulates assume the very thing they're trying to explain: consciousness! It's like defining a circle as "a shape that is round and circular".

We may not fully understand consciousness yet but that doesn't mean we need to insert a supernatural explanation. The beauty of science lies in its ability to explain complex phenomena through natural laws and processes.

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.

Going by your logic, we shouldn't question anyone's beliefs, no matter how outlandish, as long as they claim it's their subjective truth. Even if we can't directly experience another person's subjective truth, that's precisely why we need to rely more on objective evidence and verification. Otherwise, we'd just have to accept every claim of divine revelation or paranormal encounter as equally valid. And I'm sure you can appreciate how absurd and chaotic that will be.

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.

I'm afraid your attempt to corner me with this disingenuous semantic trap is dead on arrival, and I'll give you four reasons why.

(1) When we started this conversation, I never based my argument on the fact that infinite regress of cause and effect is logically possible or impossible. What I had said was that logic doesn't hinge on needing a tidy "first cause," which is a philosophical construct, not a scientific or empirical one.

(2) The concept of infinite regress is a philosophical puzzle, not an empirical claim. It's a thought experiment, not a scientific hypothesis. So, I don't need to provide an example of something I know to be possible or impossible in this realm.

(3) Even if I were to grant your request for an example, it would be a category error. You're asking me to provide empirical evidence for a philosophical concept. That's like asking for a mathematical proof of a literary metaphor.

(4) The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim -- and that's you, in case you've forgotten. If you're asserting that infinite regress is logically impossible, it's up to you to demonstrate that, not me.

Having said all of that, let me reiterate once again that I'd rather explore actual evidence and empirical observations than get bogged down in philosophical puzzles. Thanks.

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.

A scientific theory is not "just a guess" or a vague notion, my friend. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation, supported by a vast amount of evidence and testable through various methods. It's not about being "certain" or "definite"; it's about being the most accurate and comprehensive explanation we have so far. Regarding creation, you're right that science can't provide a definitive origin story. At least not yet anyways. However, that doesn't mean we should fill the gap with Zeus' lightning bolts or any other untestable, supernatural explanation. Science focuses on natural phenomena and empirical evidence, not supernatural claims. Now, about the 13.8 billion-year limit: It's true that our current understanding of physics and cosmology breaks down at the singularity of the Big Bang (time t=0). However, that doesn't mean we can't make educated guesses or propose new theories based on observations and indirect evidence. For instance, the Big Bang theory itself was developed by extrapolating observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and the large-scale structure of the universe. We may not be able to "peak [sic] beyond time t=0" directly, but we can use indirect methods to probe the very early universe. And even if we can't know for certain what happened at time t=0, that doesn't mean we should default to a creation explanation.

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

Please note that you're just describing the human discovery and notation of mathematical concepts, not the alleged timeless, objective existence of math itself.

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.

That's precisely the point! They would be empty, devoid of meaning and reference. Logic requires a context, a universe to apply to, lest it be a mere exercise in abstract futility.

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.

The law of entropy and the heat death of the universe have nothing to do with infinite regress.

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!"

LOL. That's a far cry from comprehending the abstract concept of cause and effect as we humans do. Let's not conflate instinct with understanding.

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!

The fact that our current understanding of the universe is that it has a starting point doesn't mean that cause and effect must be finite or linear. The universe has already surprised us with relativity, quantum mechanics, and dark matter. It will be stupid of us to place limits on just how weird the universe can be.

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

Don't confuse yourself. Atoms and molecules don't evolve in the Darwinian sense, but the systems they comprise, like DNA and cells, do evolve. Think of it like letters and words. It's like saying letters don't evolve, but words and languages do.

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"

This is careless misrepresentation of the facts! Atheists don't say the universe created itself or that everything begins and ends with humans. We simply acknowledge the universe operates on its own principles, without requiring supernatural intervention or human-centric narratives. We're making scientific inquiries here, not theological assumptions.

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

Well, I'm glad I could make you laugh. Just for the record though, the eye's structure can be explained by evolution and developmental biology, without recourse to appealing to supernatural intervention.

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!

Flawed analogy. In a hard drive, the data is already encoded and the rules of the system are predetermined. In contrast, the building blocks of life, like nucleotides and amino acids, have inherent chemical properties that lead to self-organization and the emergence of complex structures. It's not random rearrangement, but a natural process governed by physical laws. Windows 10 didn't emerge from a hard drive; life, however, might have emerged from the primordial soup.

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.

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.

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:
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.

NairaLTQ:
Hello Jessica,
This is TenQ, I got banned for posting 3 links to Buda


Dark Matter is NOT Tangible:
Dark matter is not considered tangible in the conventional sense because it is a term used to describe a type of matter that does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and thus cannot be directly observed using traditional telescopes or other instruments that detect light.
The Effects of Dark matter is Inferred from from its gravitational effects on matter: that is, it can neither can it be seen nor touched but its gravitational influence on motions of Galaxies.

However, because of its gravitational effects, Dark matter is believed to have mass and energy, and is proposed to be distributed throughout the whole universe but its exact properties remain largely unknown. Why? Because we know the relationship between mass and gravitational energy.

Dark matter's exact physical properties are still undiscovered and thus its a work in progress.

Ok, so we are in agreement! Dark matter isn't something you can cozy up to on the couch with. It's the ultimate cosmic ghost, exerting influence but remaining stubbornly unseen. Now, that's an interesting concept for something supposedly material. But wait, your argument hinges on the very property it denies dark matter: the ability to interact! We only know about dark matter because of its gravitational pull, an interaction with the fabric of spacetime. So, are we to believe dark matter is a picky eater of forces, shunning electromagnetism but indulging in gravity? Sounds less like tangible matter and more like a theoretical phantom with a gravitational sweet tooth. Isn't it a bit curious that a concept as fundamental as dark matter, supposedly composing a hefty chunk of the universe, remains so frustratingly obscure? It makes you wonder: are we defining something real, or simply filling a cosmic pothole in our current scientific framework with a theoretical fudge factor?

NairaLTQ:

Yes, Complexities must have a Cause!
Meteors are simple projectiles moving in their orbits: they are not complex

Atoms are complex
Cells are complex
The Eye Ball
Living things are complex
Airplanes are complex
A Ball Pen is complex
A Computer is complex

WHY?: They consist of several interdependent systems to function

Complexity is relative, my friend, not absolute. You're throwing everything from eyeballs to airplanes at me, but let's be honest, an airplane is an ingenious feat of human engineering, while a meteor is basically a glorified rock hurtling through space. The question here isn't just "is it complex?", but "how did that complexity arise?" Meteors? They formed from condensing dust and gas in the early solar system. No divine intervention required. Living things? Millions of years of evolution built upon the foundation of those simpler building blocks.

NairaLTQ:

Its an error of perception.

Perception of what, exactly? That reality requires magic?

The fact that an information of the Existence of an object is unknown does not imply that it doesn't exist. The fact that an information of the Reality of an object is unknown does not imply that it doesn't exist.

There was a time no one knew that Electrons are real and existed and it doesn't make electrons not to exist or be real before the 19th century

Neptune wasn't just "unknown" though. Its existence was actively disproven by the prevailing theory of planetary motion. It was a mathematical oddity, and a wrinkle in the celestial fabric that science couldn't explain... at least at that point in time. Electrons, on the other hand, weren't some missing puzzle piece. They weren't a theoretical "what if" but an entirely new concept. The discovery of the electron revolution wasn't just uncovering something hidden, it was fundamentally redefining our understanding of matter itself. So, while your point about the limitations of knowledge is sound, it misses the mark here. The discovery of Neptune wasn't about "unknown existing," it was about revising what we thought we knew about the existing. I hope that makes sense.

Of course we know that a software was made by a humans: What if we go to Mars and find some Gadgets that behaves exactly like our computer, would we conclude that it has a kind of software or not?

A Mirage does not exist. It is an illusion seen by the eyes seeing the reflection of the sun or the hot road or desert sand.
The software within an Artificial Intelligence (AI) is NOT just the arrangement of electrical states within the machine but DATA and INFORMATION (Commands) encoded. Example, arrangement of alphabets on a paper does not translate into ANYTHING if the alphabets are not encoded with INFORMATION.
Your Question:
Does this emergent intelligence from AI software qualifies as some kind of consciousness or sentience?
The Answer is NO: Consciousness is only possible when an object can FEEL (not sense) the environment AND then CHOOSE if it desires the Experience or NOT AND Do something about it.

Finding gadgets on the planet Mars wouldn't automatically equate to a software. You're jumping the gun here. We'd first have to understand their functionality, how they operate etc. What if it's an advanced civilization using something entirely different from code? And ultimately, even if they did use software, it wouldn't prove a divine software engineer is out there. It just shows another intelligent being figured out a way to manipulate information, just like us! You're right that a mirage is only an illusion caused by physics, not some independent entity. But the key difference is, a mirage doesn't have any effects. You can't fill your canteen with a mirage, can you? Software, on the other hand, demonstrably alters the machine's behavior. It tells the hardware what to do, and the results are real. Data and information encoded are just fancy ways of saying "a specific set of instructions". Those instructions are what make the software "real" in its ability to produce effects, just like a recipe isn't a magical gateway to a delicious cake, it's the instructions that, when followed, lead to the cake's existence.

I'm a bit amused by your understanding of consciousness which you have presented. Plants can react to stimuli, is that rudimentary sentience according to your definition? What about a thermostat -- it senses temperature and chooses (based on its programming) to turn on or off. Is that feeling and choosing? If you really want to enter the twisted maze of the consciousness topic, I'll have you know that it's probably way more complex than you can imagine. And quite frankly, the way you have described consciousness here reads like a disingenuous attempt at moving the goalposts.

It is better to say you do not believe in any deity than claim you lack belief in any deity!
Lacking a belief comes with serious negative implications!

LOL. Please try not to get yourself lost in the labyrinth of technicalities. You see, claiming I "don't believe" in a deity implies a specific god you have in mind, a preordained image that I'm rejecting. But the truth is far vaster. From the thunder gods of Norse mythology to the invisible hand of deism, the history of humanity is littered with discarded deities. Saying I "lack belief" simply acknowledges this vast pantheon of the non-existent. I don't know what you mean by "serious negative implications" of lacking belief, but I'll go out on a limb here and bet that it connotes nothing beyond the usual fear-mongering, for example, the fear of eternal damnation, a concept conveniently absent from most of human history.

You mix up two different definitions as used by Christians
Believe:
Is taking a position you consider as reasonable when you do not have enough facts to be 100% certain of the outcome of an event
e.g. I believe that the war between Russia and Ukraine will end in the defeat of Russia?
Faith:
Faith is a Trust we have in or about the Integrity of a Personality (God) due to our relationship and experience with Him.
e.g. I know my husband, he will not cheat on me! (is faith)

Believing in God should translate to Faith in God as one walks (builds experience) with God.
Faith is NOT Blind, and it is backed up with Experience,

You don't have to accept or reject this: this is how we understand things!

However, Logic and Common sense alone is enough to take one to know that the Universe was Created.

I'm afraid your distinction of belief from faith crumbles severely when we scrutinize your position properly. If your faith in God is based on a "relationship and experience," then that experience must come from somewhere, right? I'll give you a clue: there's a distinct lack of verifiable evidence for this divine companionship. As for me, my experiences tend to be grounded in the real world, not whispers in the night. Also, the claim that "logic and common sense alone are enough to conclusively prove the creation of the universe is blatantly false, and is a classic example of the argument from incredulity. Just because something seems inexplicable to us now doesn't mean it requires a divine creator. The universe is vast and strange, and our scientific understanding is constantly evolving. Look, if your faith brings you comfort, that's wonderful. But please, don't mistake emotional resonance for objective truth. True faith, if it exists at all, should be able to withstand scrutiny, not require constant redefinition and mental gymnastics.

Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience?

Yes, in the same way that a teacup orbiting Jupiter is "logically possible". Sure, the laws of physics wouldn't necessarily explode, but it's about as helpful as a chocolate teapot. We crave beginnings, that much is true, but clinging to a nonsensical concept to avoid the unknown is hardly a triumph of reason.

Any one can propose theories and it is impossible to scientifically know the answer.
Why?
We can know up to when the point of Singularity Inflated or Expanded as Big Bang, BUT we cannot know what happened BEFORE the Big bang
The Reason is because all our laws of Physics and Chemistry breaks down. There is no going past it with our tools. Time ,Space and Matter came simultaneously at the expansion of this singularity

Ok, cool. But just because science can't explain something yet, it doesn't mean it needs a divine explanation. We used to think lightning was Zeus throwing thunderbolts, you know? The good news is, science is constantly expanding the boundaries of what we know. Maybe one day we'll crack the code before the Big Bang. Until then, I'll stick with falsifiable theories, not divine hunches.

The Rules of Logic should still hold isn't it?

Duh! Rules of logic are fantastic...for things that follow logic.

Is this NOT True?

Existence precedes truth, my dear. There are ideas and concepts that are beyond our current scientific understanding, but that doesn't necessarily elevate them to become some kind of mystical truth. It just means there's more to learn, not that we need to invent celestial sky wizards to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Its just a play of Logic
Premise:
1. Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is NOT possible

Why not? Is there some cosmic law written in invisible ink that dictates a cosmic stop sign at some arbitrary point in the past? Science, with its ever-expanding understanding of the universe, doesn't offer such a guarantee.

2. There are Causes and their Effects

True enough, on a popcorn-popping level. But here's the rub: that cause-and-effect dance we see around us might not apply to the very origin of everything. Imagine the universe being a completely new kind of game with different rules -- who's to say that our familiar cause-and-effect framework even applies at that level?

Deduction:
There must be A Primary Cause or an Uncaused First Cause that started the chaing of cause and Effect

...and this, my friend, is where your logic does a pirouette into the land of fantasy. Just because we can't fathom something existing without a cause, doesn't mean the universe is obligated to play by our limited human understanding. It's entirely possible the universe itself is the ultimate self-starter, a cosmic paradox existing outside our neat little cause-and-effect boxes.

Did Atoms also evolve?

Actually, our understanding of atoms has certainly evolved! We went from indivisible balls to complex structures with protons, neutrons, and electrons. But that's our knowledge evolving, not the atoms themselves. Tell you what, how about we ditch the redundant word games and stick to topics where evolution refers to actual change in living things, not our metaphors for matter, shall we?

My language was clear on this:
The Cause of the Universe can therefore be called the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. As Christians we know His name as Yahweh and people just call Him God.

This is the nomenclature we as Christians Give the[b] Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything.[/b]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving things catchy names. For example, maybe we can start calling that pesky dark matter "WIMP" after all, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, which sounds far more whimsical than a clump of unseen stuff messing with gravity. But while that might seem all fine and dandy, it still won't get you around the fact that simply assigning a label, even a divinely inspired one like "Yahweh," doesn't actually tell us anything new about the uncaused first cause. It's like calling a black hole "The Great Devourer." Sure, it sounds impressive, but does it really explain how it bends spacetime? If you're saying Yahweh is the uncaused first cause, then we need to unpack what that means about Yahweh himself. Does he exist outside of time and space, given he's the supposed cause of it all? If so, how can we even comprehend such a being with our very human, time-bound brains? The concept of an uncaused first cause might be fascinating as a philosophical musing on existence itself. But it's highly presumptuous to claim to know the identity of this uncaused first cause with such certainty, especially when it hinges on a specific interpretation of a religious text.

Aeroplane is not near as complex as a Bacteria or the Eye or the Cat

Sandcastles are not complex: they can't be broken up into any interworking system

But you find it difficult that there was intelligence behind the
The Water Cycle
The Carbon Cycle
The Food Cycle
without which there would be no LIFE
What of Reproduction, the Brain, Instinct in animals, Digestion, SIght, Hearing, Locomotion etc ?

You think they all occurred by random chemical reactions?

Perhaps the singular fact you desperately need to grasp is that complexity, as fascinating as it sounds, is only just a spectrum. A Boeing 787 Dreamliner is an intricate marvel of engineering compared to a single-celled organism, no matter how impressive a bacterium's internal workings might be. Furthermore, and no matter how you choose to look at it, sandcastles are a product of complex physical interactions -- water tension, grain size, and wave action. Just because it doesn't have directly interworking parts like a machine doesn't mean it's not governed by underlying principles. But I guess the real kicker here is the list you drafted. Water cycles, food chains, digestion -- these are all fantastic examples of emergent properties. Imagine an anthill: no single ant has a blueprint for the whole structure, yet their collective behavior creates a complex system. Similarly, natural processes like evolution can lead to intricate results without a central planner.

Your "random chemical reactions" argument is a blatant strawman. Nobody claims life arose from pure randomness. It likely emerged through a series of complex, non-random interactions over vast stretches of time. Bottom line is that the beauty and complexity of nature doesn't necessitate a divine architect. Science offers a compelling explanation for these phenomena, and frankly, it's a far more interesting story than magic sky wizards.

Aemmyjah:


So you want to compare the universe with it's laws, order, organization, cycles to a rolling ball
U are too intelligent

Are you saying that complexity must imply a cause? If so, then what's the deal with all those meteors that have been hurtling towards us for years? They're coming to earth for a dentist appointment, right?

Aemmyjah:


The universe has a Cause
Yes or no?

Does a rolling snowball need someone to push it the whole way down the mountain?

TenQ:

Thanks a lot, at least you were fortright in giving me your opinion.

I would have responded in full except that i noticed that people have at least TWO widely different definition for that which is Tangible. Thus, I made two posts to clarify them and you were quoted.
School of thought ONE: I believe that this is where you fall on
Any reality that have effects on matter are tangible

School of thought TWO: This is where I belong
Any reality that have mass or dimension or have energy

I wish everyone will take a position and stick with it and the attendant consequences!

Is dark matter tangible by your definition then? We know it interacts with gravity, has effects on matter, yet it remains stubbornly undetectable by our current tools. Don't you think a definition that doesn't hinge on our current capacity for physical interaction should suffice?

TenQ:

Arent you too quick to judge?

I really don't think so. I'm just pointing out that your arguments might seem to rely more on smoke and mirrors, than actual evidence.

Do you know ANYTHING that is REAL but does NOT Exist?

Neptune! For decades, it was just a mathematical wobble in the orbit of Uranus -- an "idea" dreamt up by astronomers. Did it exist in the physical sense? Not a chance. But was it real? As real as a clothing store receipt. The universe itself doesn't care about our arbitrary definitions of "real." It just is. And sometimes, what "is" can be discovered through the power of reason, even before our eyes lay witness.

My question was about the software WITHIN the hardware of an AI machine. Of course my thesis says they are REAL cause they exist. My question was are they Tangible existence or Intangible existence?
Of course, because of the needless arguments, I have incorporated the different definitions of tangibile only that I require everyone to take a position and be consistent in its application to follow through with its logical conclusion in applications.

Existence doesn't automatically equate to "real" in the same way a mirage exists but isn't a real pool of water. A software is demonstrably real in the sense that it has effects, but it's a human-built phenomenon, not some fundamental aspect of the universe. Your initial point about the software's tangible existence still stands by the way, but you need to understand that it is just a set of instructions, fashioned by humans to tell the hardware what to do. It exists, demonstrably so, but suggesting that it is some ethereal Platonic ideal woven into the fabric of reality is only you leaping into the realm of pure speculation. The software within an Artificial Intelligence (AI) is just the arrangement of electrical states within the machine. It would be quite a reach to suggest that it constitutes any kind of evidence for a soul downloaded into a computer, as opposed to a fancy way of just organizing 1s and 0s in a specific pattern etched into silicon. The software itself is intangible, a set of instructions. The hardware that executes those instructions, however, is undeniably tangible. It's wires, circuits, processors -- things you can touch and get some or any kind of physical sensation. So, the AI's "mind" (if you can even call it that) emerges from the complex interplay between a very tangible machine and intangible instructions. It's the result of a process, not a separate entity on its own.

At any rate, I'd prefer if we do not get bogged down in semantics. An interesting question one might ask is if this emergent intelligence from AI software qualifies as some kind of consciousness or sentience? That's a fascinating debate for another day, and perhaps one where a clear, and agreed upon, definition of "real" might actually be useful.

I understand: and this is why it is difficult making meaningful conversations with you.

The preferred Atheists claim of LACK of BELIEF is terribly WRONG and is not consistent with good reasoning. I an explain if you want.

Of course it may frustrate you because you may lack the capacity to delve into the rabbit hole of understanding the nuances of human beliefs. I'm not saying it is necessarily the case with you, but I've observed that it is the case with most Christians I've talked to. Here's the real kicker, TenQ: lacking a belief in unicorns doesn't require a grand unified theory of unicornology, does it? Perhaps you could enlighten me on the rigorous philosophical system underpinning your belief in fairies? As for my "preferred" claim of lacking belief, well, that's because it's the most accurate. The burden of proof, as they say in logic circles (which I hope you frequent!), lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. You believe in a deity? That's cute. Now back it up with something more substantial than "because faith."

You can Reason your Way to God or Choose to Stay Blind

Come on now, TenQ. Don't you read your Bible? How can I reason my way to a deity who literally wants me to believe by blind faith, not reason? In that case, then maybe I should get a map, a flashlight, and a good lawyer specializing in divine non-disclosure agreements!

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
- Hebrews 11:1-3

5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight.
- 2 Corinthians 5:7

An Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is Logically Impossible

You say an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible, but then you posit an "Uncaused First Cause." Isn't that a bit like playing whack-a-mole with logic? You've only just pushed the problem back a step and declared premature victory. Infinite regress? More like Infinite sidestep!

Our Physical Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago. Time , Space and matter appeared simultaneously with this beginning

The universe had a beginning, sure. Science doesn't shy away from that. But to leap from "beginning" to "therefore God" is a bit of a kangaroo jump over a whole lot of "we don't know yet." There are plenty of cosmological theories out there that don't require a divine creator.

Whatever Caused the Universe to change from its state of Singularity to this universe must be outside our universe

Bah! How awfully convenient. How can we even reason about something that's fundamentally outside the realm of our logic and observation? It's the ultimate "because magic" argument!

Whatever caused the Universe must not be subject to the Energies and the Laws that Govern this Universe: Such must not obey the laws of Physics and Chemistry because the laws of Physics and Chemistry did not exist until after the big bang/inflation

So the cause of the universe isn't bound by the laws of physics we painstakingly observe? Sounds like a cop-out to explain the unexplained. Perhaps there are yet-to-be-discovered physical principles that explain the origin of everything.

The Cause of the Universe must be Uncaused because infinite regress of Cause and effect is Logically impossible.

An uncaused cause? Isn't that a paradox wrapped in an enigma? Maybe the concept of cause and effect simply breaks down at the very beginning. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just reference Planck Time just seconds ago, lol?

...because the laws of Physics and Chemistry did not exist until after the big bang/inflation

Because Intelligence in Animals and Men cannot happen out of chaos, the Cause of Life must also be Intelligent and he has His purpose for creating the Universe.

Well then, hold my beer and watch evolution. Blind variation and natural selection, not divine intervention, explain the incredible complexity of life.

The Cause of the Universe can therefore be called the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. As Christians we know His name as Yahweh and people just call Him God.

So we go from uncaused first cause to "Yahweh" because... why exactly? This feels more like slapping a label on the unknown than an actual explanation.

I spoke about inter-connected Systems:
Many times, several systems need to be working before the interconnected system even have a hope of working.

1. An Airplane is a Machine consisting of several systems. All these must be present before a plane can be called a flying machine. It must have a structurally sound aerofoil wing, it must have a propulsion engine. It must have a control surface. It must have a flight controller set (the rudder control, aerolon control, banking control etc).
2. Given ALL the parts of a Boeing 747 and an infinite time for which parts can be randomly connected together, do you think Chaos can eventually produce a plane?

This is just a rehash of Paley's Watchmaker argument, and it is notorious for being a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, or, perhaps in your case, missing the hangar for the airplane parts 😉.

First of all, we obviously can't deny the fact that airplanes are ridiculously complex. But it would be shallow thinking to conclude that complexity automatically must always equate to intelligent design. Sandcastles, as I mentioned before, exhibits fascinating patterns due to physics, not some divine architect. It's true that various airplane parts working together to make it fly. But here's the key difference: those parts were intentionally designed by humans, informed by scientific principles. In our chaotic scenario, there's no designer, no blueprints, just a jumbled mess of parts.

More importantly, and this is just a question that has intrigued me for some time now: if we accept that everything was designed by God, then can you point me to something that wasn't designed by God, which we can use as reference or comparisons to justify things that were designed?

Aemmyjah:



So an human creation could create this universe?
We cannot even properly replicate creation even with all the resources and best brains

I don't remember suggesting any of that to you. Creating an entire universe of this scale is a tall order even for us humans. We build iPhones, not Big Bangs. Maybe you should read up on Russell's teapot analogy -- it discusses actual evidence the burden of proof, not creation myths.

Personally, I'd like to think of this thread as a shoddy "appeal to intangibility gambit". Allow me to touch on a couple of things in your appeal.

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.

While your definitions may seem objective, they're loaded to the brim with assumptions. Equating "real" with "exists" is highly disingenuous. Ideas like mathematics exist in the sense that they're consistent systems, even if they don't have physical form.

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

That's a very curious mix of examples of intangible realities you've got there. Life? Sure, that's a biological process, emergent from tangible systems. Software code? Absolutely real in the sense it produces effects, but it's still a human creation, not some fundamental essence.

For sake of time, and the fact that I'm busy tending to more pressing matters, I'll ignore the rest of your points that I consider irrelevant at the moment and just go straight to the questions... if you don't mind.

Please note that I'm speaking solely for myself when I answer your questions. Contrary to public opinion, atheists don't share any consensus on any matters at all. The only thing that connects atheists together is a LACK of belief in God or Gods.

Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?

Absolutely. Math, logic, even emotions are real, even if not physical.

2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?

That will be mostly dependent on the circumstances. If it's something with demonstrable effects, sure, demanding a physical form is unreasonable. But if it's, say, a magic invisible dragon that grants wishes, then yeah, some evidence beyond faith would be nice.

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!

Sometimes effects are proof of existence. Sometimes, they're not. A footprint proves a creature walked there, but it doesn't tell you if it had feathers or scales. So, it depends on the quality of the effect.

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?

Not necessarily. A complex machine can have unintended emergent properties. Look at the intricate patterns formed by sandcastles - no intelligent designer needed. The central issue here is the jump from "intangible realities exist" to "therefore a deity exists." There's no logical connection. The universe could be brimming with intangible things, and none of them have to be a god.

You keep using software as an analogy for a deity, and that's fine, but then that deity would be a human creation, not some ultimate being. More like a really powerful chatbot, which, while impressive, wouldn't inspire much awe. So all in all, you've created an interesting thought experiment in your OP, but it doesn't really challenge atheism in the slightest, if we're being honest. It just demonstrates that some things can be real without being physical, which (I think) most atheists would readily agree with.

Eriokanmi:
I didn't change out of fear. When you did something bad and you got punished. You sit down and ask yourself, so this thing is really bad but I didn't know all these while, until I got punished. I'd rather not do it again and even teach others the danger inherent in doing it or its consequence in the long run.

My mates knew i was fearless in those days. I had beaten up a senior cos he seized my slippers and I got servery punished for that by his mates. I later realised it was a bad habit to beat up someone higher or older than you. I should have reported him to one of the teachers instead.

Imagine I was pampered for being so unruly. I'd have continued until I'd meet someone stronger than I outside and got hurt or maimed. But i was stopped early and I realised it was a bad habit early as well

Well, indeed you could have had the opportunity to learn about navigating authority figures, right and wrong within a system, if you had just reported the guy who took your slippers... maybe even learn a thing or two about conflict resolution.

Punishment might slam the brakes on a bad habit, but positive reinforcement steers you towards a better path. Just imagine that you got praised for reporting that guy, and maybe got those pilfered slippers replaced with a cool new pair. Now that's a lesson that sticks, with a reward that motivates future good behavior. There's always a place for consequences, but fostering good choices from the get-go is quite simply, a more humanist approach.

Eriokanmi:
It changed me for the better. Each time I remembered those punishments, I'd behave myself.

Interesting. Dependence on fear as a motivator. I'm curious, have you ever heard of positive reinforcement?

Eriokanmi:
Every form of correction is called bully in our society,SMH!. This takes different dimensions, mind you. If a student physically assaulted a fellow, it should be frowned at. But when a senior punished or scolded a child, don't raise eyebrows its not bully. When a senior punished you ober a wrongdoing, they call it bully nowadays.
I've been called all manner of names in my sec school days and I've called my mates names too nobody died as a result. Till today, we still call ourselves those names at our physical set meetings, likewise on WhatsApp group. We'd just laugh over it meanwhile in those days, e dey pain us cos no be d name our parents give us. Nobody died as a result of these.

We're raising a generation of over pampered students and we're ok by it. It's not right.

This is an absurd position to hold on this issue. However, simply because this kind of thinking is very prevalent in this country, I won't blame you entirely. Now first of all, there's a world of difference between a senior playfully ribbing their mates with (hopefully!) good-natured nicknames and straight-up bullying. The latter breaks people down. It's about power and humiliation, dominating someone else and making him/her feel inferior in every sense of the word.

Is correction necessary? Absolutely! But any good teacher, parent, friend, or really anyone close to you has a thousand and one ways to correct you without having to debase you by calling you names or shaming you up in public. That's how to show respect for someone: by focusing on their behavior in a constructive manner. Feel free to teach your kids to be tough, but please try not to normalize outright cruelty while you're at it!