Dtruthspeaker:


Same for Orgasms, Evolution, Cars, Buhari, Movies etc.

Everything in this world is based on the report if subjective experiences being given, so you have no point.

Your comment has to make sense before you call mine pointless. Save your Mr. Toyota analogies to yourself please.

sonmvayina:


Have you ever seen a law that is more beautiful and perfect than the Torah?

True! The omenani is like festering shit next to the beautiful, perfect, great, ideal Torah.

Kobojunkie:
Abeg, Waka pass!

Lol, sorry. Your God is exempt from the baseless opinions.

Kobojunkie:
Baseless opinions and subjective experiences litter countless books out there that pretend to speak about God yet the world remains no closer to understanding of God. Worse, those who consume these opinions appear more deluded than those who lack a belief in God

Baseless opinions litter countless books out there that pretend to speak about God because God is a baseless opinion based on the subjective experiences of those who write the books.
So, OP should definitely write his book and claim it is inspired by God. He wouldn’t appear any more deluded than those who already consume these opinions.

A Catholic priest talking criticizing tithing?
An organization that collected some much tithes, offerings, and criminal booty over 2 millennia and has its own bank shouldn’t view itself as a valid critic of tithing.
Any member of such an organization has no moral or ethical standing to criticize tithing.

TenQ:

2Cor 4:4:
"In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them."

You perpetually benighted devotees of silly mythologies are the only blind ones. The whole world bears witness to the ignorance of the overtly religious and superstitious Africans, on the continent and in the diaspora.

What worthless christ? What worthless god?

NNTR:


In a simplest form, both are abstract
The mind is in the soul, just as the algorithm is in the software, loll

The software is housed in a hardware, while the soul is housed in a human body.
The software interacts with various parts of the hardware, while the soul, does similar, it interacts with the body and the spirit man

The software that this platform is coded from is bespoke. Yes, it first used PHP, before Python, so you can call the platform software as mainly Python, just as you can be called 'killyaselfie'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

The Guqizsn aura saturates the Otion just like electricity. The essence of the Zalunn is then encased in the Otion before connection to the Raka booty.

The Raka booty is then immaterially immersed in the physical body where it controls the heart, liver, and kidneys.

The Otion then converts into esoteric language and interfaces with the brain in the form of neurons and neurotransmitters.

Of course, these are all abstraction of the divine wheel of necessity.

budaatum:


It's belief that's the problem.

One can't be a use the senses to ask and knock and seek, and at the same time hold on to beliefs. Because, once one believes, one stops asking and knocking and seeking, and after so long even the abilities to ask and knock and seek are lost.

The problem of Africa (and the African diaspora) in a nutshell.

TenQ:

Back to square one!?

Lmao. You never got to square one talkless of back to square one.

Lordreed will put it in a respectable manner but you are a jackass.

Not only is the soul unexplained, you then introduce another thing called spirit-body.
I feel you though. It reminds me of when I tell people about Otions and Raka booties only for them to call me crazy.

Humans have Otions that survives their death while fauna and flora only have otions that can’t survive death.

Human Otions survive death because they have Raka booties that are perpetually connected to the Otions.

That’s how Mercurians relate to the concept of Booty, Otion,and Raka. It’s similar to a Toyota and its engine.

DeepsightX:


No worries amigo. I wish you well.

Whatever, boy.

DeepsightX:


Of all the attributes which either scripture or conventional moral wisdom may recommend to a person, humility is one of the most underrated and yet, one of the most useful precepts in any kind of social interaction. While I am not a religious person and have not been throughout my adult life, I have come to understand that the scorn and disdain which many atheists or irreligious people reserve for the religious is something that the wise ones among them tend to do away with. This is for several reasons, but those which concern me here are -

(1) sitting on a grain of sand on a beach (to use your own words - an analogy I have oft used myself) we know so little about the universe in which we live (which itself may just be another grain of sand on a vaster beach and so on) - not to speak about reality as a whole. This alone should compel sufficient humility in all of us such that we restrain our more bombastic and arrogant tendencies with respect to the market place of ideas. I say this as someone who has spent many years myself pouring massive scorn on religious people so do not think I am waxing sanctimonious or holier-than-thou here.

(2) Many times, as I hinted earlier, the scientific community itself has become so rigid and dogmatic in its approach to things, that it is not uncommon to find scientists spewing grievous nonsensicalities in a bid to destroy any conceivable notion of spirituality or the existence of a higher power or intelligence out there which may have anything to do with our existence on this planet. This is in itself ridiculous when one remembers that we sit on a grain of sand on a beach, but the sheer extreme dogmatism and vitriol deployed by the supposedly scientifically minded to destroy any idea related to the possibility of anything spiritual or even the idea that there could have been any consciousness behind the world as we know it, is too extreme in itself and thus anti-scientific. In this you find such people ready to make every manner of illogical pronouncement and most strangely - in doing this, because "science" is the the orthodoxy of the day, they peer down their noses arrogantly and smugly pitying everyone else who they consider ignorant and deluded.

I have written this specially for you sir, because I can only smile when I read you describing someone else as "a jackass" up there, after you have, on this same thread, insisted that thoughts are matter, that they have mass and occupy space, and that evidence of this is that if you write a thought down on a sheet of paper, voila, that's a thought with mass and occupying space. I dont know with what words this sort of insistence on denial of the obvious may be described, but I can only tell you that once I recognized the length you were prepared to go to, I had no choice but to quietly withdraw because it is something I am all too familiar with. What you presented has no words by which it may be described, but believe me, there is nothing new under the sun.

I therefore simply wish to recommend to you a little humility. I dont think that gentleman you called a jackass has been rude to you even if you both disagree.

You should have saved this nonsense and instead explained the “reality beyond the physical”. You defend nonsense because your ideas are nonsense. When called to explain, like the jackass you defend, you ask a thousand questions and refuse to explain.

TenQ:


The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

Lol. What a jackass.

TenQ:

??
Sorry to have wasted my time with you

If you don't understand how the simple computer functions, how can you understand how the soul and body interacts?

Lol, explain how a soul is similar to software.
I’m not consulting Google either. You are the computer expert here

TenQ:

If you can just slow down to think. Tantrums don't change anything.

If you can understand the relationship between the computer program and the computer hardware, then you will understand the relationship between the soul and the body.

But when you choose not to purse knowledge and understanding, too bad: you can't be helped.

If you don't understand how the simple computer functions, how can you understand how the soul and body interacts?

What a joke. You keep insisting that lines of instructions known as software is similar to the soul. Fine, show us in the body where this soul of yours
Your bumptious ignorance is nauseating but please, go ahead and explain how a “simple computer’s” function is just like the human body.

Since you are a computer expert, don’t ask questions about CPU, GPU, etc but explain what a soul is, where it is, and how it drives bodily function and how it’s analogous to computer software.

Ok, Einstein?

TenQ:

And we have shown the equivalence between the soul and the computer program that acts on the hardware!

The question was:
Can a computer program/algorithm exist outside the computer?

Christ fucking Jesus, you haven’t shown any equivalence of anything!!

TenQ:

Exactly why cannot objectively answer a simple question relating to the computer. You could at least consult Google.

SMH!

The issue is about the definition of a soul, not computers. You were asked about the nature or composition of a soul along with its location but you start asking about HDD, CPU,GPU and then claim someone can’t ”objectively answer a simple question”. That person be you.

You’re the one with the analogy that doesn’t make sense and instead of explaining what a soul is you keep talking about software.

Why don’t you consult google then come back and explain the soul. Not comouter software but soul.


This is not a conversation with your fellow Christians or other religious types where you assume nonsense, make unfounded claims, and nod in agreement with each other

On the back of a fiery unicorn.

The Arab mongrels who own the demented religion would discriminate or enslave all of you if given a chance as historically shown but keep lying to yourselves though.

TenQ:

I wish you can at least show some level of objectivity by thinking.

You asked a question

“Objectivity by thinking” coming from a Christian is a joke.

All you have to do is show what the soul is and where it’s located. You keep hammering on ignorantly about computers and asking needless questions.

TenQ:

Okay!
Can you tell me how to detect, see or describe the software in a HDD or CPU of a computer without using another software?
Or what sensor is available for detecting or viewing the Softwares in a computer/MPU without using another Software?

Go to the nearest computer technician and ask them.

You have to be deaf and dumb or delusional to believe this nonsense. Even the girls in the picture are tired of the Chosen’s bullshit. I just hope they fed them rice and stew after the shenanigans.

budaatum:


I concur. Though I might have said, the mind.

Okay, mind as in the part of brain involved in that function because we seem to ignore that we aren't even talking about a singular entity but one that can be divided into three distinct parts with various functions.

DeepsightX:


Save that this is not the question and you have already answered the question by affirming that you believe that thoughts are matter, and that they have mass and occupy space, for example, on paper.

Yes, they have mass and occupy space as chemicals/neurons otherwise known as a functioning brain with scientific backing posted.
Yes, they have mass and occupy space if you record them on a medium such as paper.

TenQ:

In summary: We do not have sufficient information similar to that which we have with softwares acting on a computer: thus, we can only generalise

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

The Brain is the source of the WILL, INTELLECT, EMOTION. These three effects amongst others are part of conciousness or mind and you don't need a soul to explain how the brain generates the effects. On the other hand, your "soul" is totally dependent on the acceptance of your claim that it "interfaces with the liver ,spleen ,brain.

TenQ:

One may not be able to localise or locate exactly where the soul resides in the body because it isn't tangible. But one can say that there seems to be a strong interface between the operations of the soul and the nervous system (including the brain).

Dude, tell us what a soul is and how we can see or detect it before claiming there is a "strong interface" between it and the liver, brain, kidneys or whatever.

DeepsightX:


Even at that, there is a sense in which that is still correct.

I guess it's in the same sense that geocentrism is correct.

DeepsightX:


This is truly weird: I am not sure you can validly sustain the idea that thoughts take up space by conflating a thought with either its written representation on paper or the chemical reactions ancillary to it. I would urge you to be careful because it seems to me that you are willing to venture into very illogical and also anti-scientific territory in the pursuit of your determination to exclude the existence of the immaterial.

There is nothing weird about what I am saying until you show how thoughts are independent of material things. There is nothing anti-scientific about matter generating thought. Neurons, chemical signals, electrical signals products of matter or matter themselves.
Still, stop trying to disprove the fact that thoughts are matter (as in material) and explain how thoughts are examples of the immaterial which is the bone of contention. You are the one who is supposed to have proven this in a few short sentences!!

DeepsightX:

This is not the question. Please do not avoid it. I said, are thoughts matter, even if produced by matter. And you said yes. I went on to ask what type of matter, solid, liquid or gases, and if they have mass and occupy space. Now you are venturing to push the envelope by saying that they do?

Yes, thought are matter. You can figure out the state if you want.
https://southsidemedical.net/how-brain-chemistry-affects-mental-health/
Which Chemicals are Involved with Brain Chemistry and Mental Health?
Happiness, sadness, excitement, euphoria, and even fear are emotions that are triggered and maintained by chemicals in the brain known as neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are the brain’s way of communicating with the body’s nerve cells. When there isn’t enough or there is too much of one kind of neurotransmitter present, it can lead to what are called ‘bad nerves’.

The chief neurotransmitters produced by the brain are:

Dopamine
Dopamine is the chemical in the brain that is associated with the pleasure and reward centers of the brain. High amounts of dopamine lead to feelings of pleasure or euphoria.
Serotonin
Serotonin is the chemical associated with rest and sleep. However, it’s also associated with your moods, sexual arousal and even hunger.
Glutamate
Glutamate is associated with learning, memory and feelings of excitement.
Norepinephrine
Norepinephrine acts as both a neurotransmitter as well as a hormone. Norepinephrine is a stress-responsive chemical that creates the “fight or flight” response when we are feeling stressed out. Low levels of it can cause ADHD and depression.

Unlike electricity, the brain's chemical messengers, the neurotransmitters, are difficult to identify from first observations. The action of electricity could be confirmed or disproved by home-style tests; but the activity and nature of a chemical compound that may be involved in the brain's signaling system demand more rigorous examination. The compound must meet a half dozen specific criteria to be considered a neurotransmitter—as opposed to, say, a "second messenger" in the brain, which broadcasts signals within a cell rather than conveying a signal from one cell to another. (Distinctions such as this, which may seem overly fine at first, have a way of turning out later to be crucial for understanding new, otherwise inexplicable data.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234149/
To be recognized as a neurotransmitter, a chemical compound must satisfy six conditions: It must be (1) synthesized in the neuron, (2) stored there, and (3) released in sufficient quantity to bring about some physical effect; (4) when administered experimentally, the compound must demonstrate the same effect that it brings about in living tissue; and (5) there must be receptor sites specific to this compound on the postsynaptic membrane, as well as (6) a means for shutting off its effect, either by causing its swift decomposition or by reuptake, absorbing it back into the cell. Of course, before any of these items on the checklist come into question, the compound must somehow be detectable in the human brain—not always an easy matter, in view of the minute quantities involved.

DeepsightX:


This could be considered merely the flavor and nuance of language. I dont think anyone doubts that what is meant there is simply the "inner mind" and its still used in that context even today.

PS: It is not just wicked but "desperately" wicked.

Or it could be that they really thought the seat of intelligence is the heart and it only became “a flavor or nuance of language” when shown otherwise. Given how the heart races and how the muscles in the chest cavity contracts when people are anxious, or fearful, or in love, it’s not far fetched to take them verbatim when they spoke about the heart.

DeepsightX:


I am not sure that this is a known definition of matter. Does a thought have weight or occupy space. What kind of matter is it - solid, liquid or gaseous?

As far as I know, this is the definition of matter:

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. It can be in the form of solids, liquids, or gases.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/physical-property-of-matter-definition-examples-quiz.html

No one is trying to goad you into anything that is not already obvious. You can't succeed with your claim that thoughts are matter. That is simply scientifically false.

No it isn’t false. Thoughts depend on/are material and you can find the properties of said matter if you want to. Thoughts do take up space, whether as chemical composition/ arrangements in the brain or when transferred to another medium such as paper.

Please, show how thoughts are immaterial without reference to anything material.

Yes, “immaterial” things may exist somewhere somehow because I can’t seat on a grain of sand and claim to know what the beach is made of, but we need a criteria to infer their existence. Preferably one that doesn’t misinterpret material interactions as evidence for the immaterial.

DeepsightX:


Not disputing that at this moment amigo. Yet it seems that you are unwilling to address the question as to if thoughts are matter. So are thoughts matter or not? For the purpose of this question, let us assume that we agree already that thoughts are functions of matter. Are they therefore matter?

You are trying to goad me to say thoughts are immaterial which doesn’t mean anything. Thoughts are products of matter and yes, they are matter because it’s the exchange of chemicals (matter) between neurons(matter) that give rise to thoughts.

Earlier, the conversation was about if shadows are material or immaterial when they are just the effects of the interaction between material objects.