FRANCISTOWN:

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

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

I have interacted with Atheists especially here on Nairaland to know that it is their view. Their reaction even to this thread is an example of that

FRANCISTOWN:

Things that are not real are not necessary virtual. Lemme use the same example that you used.
Your image in the mirror is not you, but it doesn't mean the image doesn't exist.

If it is virtual, it doesn't exist! This is why going to the back of the mirror actually proves that what was seen wasn't real. In Optics, images are either REAL or VIRTUAL

FRANCISTOWN:

When you stand in front of a mirror, the photons and the waves of electromagnetic radiations from your reflection hitting the surface of the mirror produces your image.
Which actually exists. Your image is virtual, but the photons and the electromagnetic radiations are real.

But the EM isnt the Image

FRANCISTOWN:

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

True!
I am showing that several examples abound for EXISTENCES that are REAL but NOT TANGIBLE
One of these is the SOFTWARE in a Machine!

FRANCISTOWN:

Since I haven't said that, I don't think it's necessary for me to defend what you assumed.
However, not everything that is intangible is inexistent.

This is good;
Now the Question for you is this:
The Software within a Machine is obviously REAL but is it TANGIBLE?

FRANCISTOWN:

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

This is not the point:
It is just a stepping stone to something rational

Are you saying that your Being an Atheist is NOT because you lack a Belief in any Deity BUT you hold a rational position?

Everyday247:
Wow, i just logged in right now and saw this mention. op i didn't really read what you posted, but it was very long and i believe you spent a lot of time on it so you get an E for effort. Good job boss.

Note:
A donkey can carry a whole library of books on its back but remain stupid
Reason: he thinks its Too Much information, so he would rather NOT read but nevertheless take a position of knowing the content!

Have a nice day sir!

triplechoice:
Her grief was tangible is not a figure of speech.

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


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

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

Is it UNTRUE that every Figure of Speech must be interpreted?


This is exactly what you've done!

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

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

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

Then why ae you avoiding to answer DIRECTLY simple Questions?
Are you afraid of the implications, so you will rather deny the obvious for the sake of remaining in an argument?

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

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

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

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

Can you kindly point me to where the question was answered?

FRANCISTOWN:

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

😂

TenQ:

I have interacted with Atheists especially here on Nairaland to know that it is their view. Their reaction even to this thread is an example of that

Atheists are just a group of different people. What brought us together is the lack of believe in the existence of a God.
There are many atheists who believe in paranormal, ghosts and some sort of rituals.
Some don't believe in anything at all.
It doesn't make anyone less of an atheist.

TenQ:

If it is virtual, it doesn't exist! This is why going to the back of the mirror actually proves that what was seen wasn't real. In Optics, images are either REAL or VIRTUAL


But the EM isnt the Image

You know, the most important thing is the way the brain interpretes every information.
What we are really seeing are just beams of light. The brain interpretes it to be the image.

TenQ:

True!
I am showing that several examples abound for EXISTENCES that are REAL but NOT TANGIBLE
One of these is the SOFTWARE in a Machine!


This is good;
Now the Question for you is this:
The Software within a Machine is obviously REAL but is it TANGIBLE?

It depends on which context. In my previous post on your other thread. I remember I said clearly that "I didn't say whether or softwares are not tangible." because the word "tangible" can serve different purposes depending on the mind of the speaker.

For instance: The word tangible can be a "Noun" and at the same time an "adjective"

According to my wikitionary:

Adjective:
tangible

•Touchable; able to be touched or felt; perceptible by the sense of touch
Synonyms: palpable

or
•Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete.
or
•Comprehensible by the mind; understandable.

If you looked at the first definition. Since softwares are not perceptible by any sense of touch. It is safe to say softwares are intangible but the second and third definition, especially the last definition.
A software is Comprehensible and understandable.
For without the two, a software is useless.

Now it is possible to say that a software is tangible (adjective)

Also

Noun:
tangible (plural tangibles)

•A physical object, something that can be touched.

•Real or concrete results.
Yes, but what are the tangibles?

If we were to follow the first definition.
We could possibly say a software is intangible.
But if we were to follow the second definition. Since softwares are real. Therefore we can say that softwares are tangible.

TenQ:

Are you saying that your Being an Atheist is NOT because you lack a Belief in any Deity BUT you hold a rational position?

I do not believe in the existence of deities, not that "I do not believe in deities". They are different.

TenQ:

Is it UNTRUE that every Figure of Speech must be interpreted?


This is exactly what you've done!

Every
figure of speech is interpreted correctly by those who understand it, and must be interpreted by everyone who wants to know what it refers to.

I asked you what figure of speech is contained in the statement " Her grief is tangible"? Figures of speech have names. So don't just say it's a figure of speech and end it there.

Is it a simile, metaphor, hyperbole?

Emusan:


Can you kindly point me to where the question was answered?

Go to page 4 of the thread by Veecruz, "Atheist says spirits is nothing because it's non physical and invisible"

You will find my responses to the questions there. Please come back after reading to tell me what you think, and also don't forget to ask your friend TenQ the reason for the questions . He has refused to answer directly.

TenQ:

Then why ae you avoiding to answer DIRECTLY simple Questions?
Are you afraid of the implications, so you will rather deny the obvious for the sake of remaining in an argument?

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

I'm not an atheist. I keep reminding you of this. I already answered your first set of questions . It's on page 4 of the other thread in case you have forgotten.

Since I'm not an atheist,I won't answer the above untill you tell me where they're leading to, and why I must answer it.

triplechoice:
Every
figure of speech is interpreted correctly by those who understand it, and must be interpreted by everyone who wants to know what it refers to.

I asked you what figure of speech is contained in the statement " Her grief is tangible"? Figures of speech have names. So don't just say it's a figure of speech and end it there.

Is it a simile, metaphor, hyperbole?

The Figure of Speech of "Her grief is tangible" is: Metaphor

Why:
In this metaphor, the word "tangible" is used to describe the quality of the grief being experienced by "her."
Grief, which is an abstract emotion, is being compared to something tangible or palpable, suggesting that it feels very real and can almost be physically sensed or touched.

TenQ:

The Figure of Speech of "Her grief is tangible" is: Metaphor

Why:
In this metaphor, the word "tangible" is used to describe the quality of the grief being experienced by "her."
Grief, which is an abstract emotion, is being compared to something tangible or palpable, suggesting that it feels very real and can almost be physically sensed or touched.

No . You are very wrong to say it's a metaphor.

A metaphor is a direct comparison between two unlike objects to show the similarities which exist between them.

What we have in the statement, Her grief is tangible " is a a description of her grief as tangible .In other words, it's a post modification of "her grief. Tangible here is used as an adjective to describe her grief. A premodification of her grief will read, " Her tangible grief"

It would be a metaphor if it reads "Her grief is an hurricane" . In this instance one is making a direct comparison between her grief and another thing , an hurricane.


Her grief is not abstract emotion. What kind of nonsense is this now? How can grief which people feel within themselves be described as abstract. I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word abstract. It's the word, grief that's an abstract noun and not the emotion of grief It describes.

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.

JessicaRabbit:
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.





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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

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

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.

JessicaRabbit:


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.

The universe has a Cause
Yes or no?

I think many of you have ignored my use of the definition of Tangible Realities of characterisable by Mass or Dimension (Length, Area or Volume) and Energy instead many were using tangible as
1. A Figure of Speech
2. Noun
3. Adjective (split into two definitions)
a. Describing a reality that is touchable or Handlable
b. Describing a reality that is untouchable but has effect on other objects

Example:
As an adjective, it describes something that is perceptible by touch or capable of being touched; it refers to something concrete, real, or definite. For example, "She wanted tangible evidence to support her claim."

As a noun, "tangible" refers to something that is fixed and visible, usually an object or item that can be perceived by touch. For example, "The company's assets include both tangible and intangible properties." In this context, "tangible" refers to physical assets like buildings, machinery, or inventory.


In our case: Tangible with respect to Software as used is treated as an Adjective
In the sentence "A software is NOT tangible," "tangible" is an adjective modifying the noun "software." It describes the characteristic of software as not being capable of being touched or physically perceived. So, "tangible" is functioning as an adjective here, expressing the quality of physical presence or tangibility.

The example of //Her Grief is tangible:
In the figure of speech "Her grief was tangible," the word "tangible" is used metaphorically to describe the intensity or palpability of the emotion of grief. It suggests that the grief is so profound and real that it feels as though it can be touched or physically sensed, even though emotions are abstract and intangible by nature. In this context, "tangible" is still functioning as an adjective, but it's used figuratively to evoke a vivid sense of the depth and concreteness of the emotion being described.

For the avoidance of doubt and for clarity
An adjective is a part of speech that modifies or describes a noun or pronoun, providing additional information about its qualities or attributes. Adjectives can indicate size, color, shape, age, personality, emotions, and many other characteristics of the noun they modify.


My Definitions :
https://www.nairaland.com/8069157/atheists-costly-error-assumption-everything#129569120
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.

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

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


The Objective Remain the Same:
Tangible here mean: Any Reality than can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time Tangible does NOT mean having Effects (or else Gravity, Electric Field and Magnetic field will be tangible)
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?



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

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

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

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

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

Summary:

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

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

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

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

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

JessicaRabbit:
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.





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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

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!

TenQ:
Summary:

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

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

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

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

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

You need a shrink ASAP

jaephoenix:

You need a shrink ASAP

Haven't I taken ALL your conflicting definitions into view?
Summary:

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

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

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

jaephoenix:

You need a shrink ASAP

I refuse to follow him to this thread, hence.

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/17#129637146

JessicaRabbit:
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.

Arent you too quick to judge?

JessicaRabbit:


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.

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

JessicaRabbit:

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.

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.

JessicaRabbit:

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.

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.

JessicaRabbit:

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

[quote author=JessicaRabbit post=129632967]
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.
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.

You can Reason your Way to God or Choose to Stay Blind
1. An Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is Logically Impossible
2. Our Physical Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago. Time , Space and matter appeared simultaneously with this beginning
3. Whatever Caused the Universe to change from its state of Singularity to this universe must be outside our universe
4. 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
5. The Cause of the Universe must be Uncaused because infinite regress of Cause and effect is Logically impossible.
6. 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.
7. 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.

JessicaRabbit:

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.

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?

JessicaRabbit:
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.

You saw that being new to the conversation?

Nice catch!

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/1#129479374

budaatum:


You saw that being new to the conversation?

Nice catch!

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/1#129479374

Thank God you can read my response to her! You just need some sympathy, that's all!
LOL!

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!

You can wish all you want but the fact remains that you can't impose your wish on anyone since we all have brains inside our heads.

In fact, this lesson is taught very early in the Bible where God failed to impose his wishes on Adam and Eve, so it is rather arrogantly amusing of you to be trying it here, and I can only hope you learn from the failure.

budaatum:


You can wish all you want but the fact remains that you can't impose your wish on anyone since we all have brains inside our heads.

It has nothing to do with my will for I defined properly my use of the word Tangible: as Realities that have mass, dimension or Energy ( almost a million times).

budaatum:

In fact, this lesson is taught very early in the Bible where God failed to impose his wishes on Adam and Eve, so it is rather arrogantly amusing of you to be trying it here, and I can only hope you learn from the failure.

The Potter has the Right to make the clay ANY SHAPE He wants: don't you think so?
AND the consequence is Pain, Death and loss of control of the Earth

TenQ:

It has nothing to do with my will for I defined properly my use of the word Tangible: as Realities that have mass, dimension or Energy ( almost a million times).

And I think I agreed with your definition if that is what you understand. Then I gave you my definition, and I showed you how it is used by me so you too could understand. But you said no! That buda too must believe your definition as if words can't have many meanings and definitions or like you were buda's god.

AND the consequence is Pain, Death and loss of control of the Earth

And you now have the audacity to threaten to inflict pain on buda and kill buda and remove buda off the face of the earth, TenQ!

TenQ:
The Potter has the Right to make the clay ANY SHAPE He wants: don't you think so?

buda is not clay, TenQ, and you are not anyone's potter, and you obviously don't have the right nor the authority as you can see from the tangible and intangible evidence that is before us all.

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?

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?

Aemmyjah:


The universe has a Cause
Yes or no?

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

JessicaRabbit:


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

Does cause occur during a rolling down eh?

Is it not before the roll down begins?

You atheists thinking rolls like a blown out tyre