Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,155,898 members, 7,828,163 topics. Date: Wednesday, 15 May 2024 at 04:05 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE (1994 Views)
A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al / Don't Be Deceived By The Atheists And Other Agents Of Satan. Please Read... / Why Do The Atheists Bother If They Don't Believe? Here Is Why. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (11) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by Aemmyjah(m): 7:43am On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit: So you want to compare the universe with it's laws, order, organization, cycles to a rolling ball U are too intelligent |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by Aemmyjah(m): 7:45am On Apr 26 |
StillDtruth: I asked a Yes/No question She is talking about rolling ball |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by StillDtruth: 8:01am On Apr 26 |
Aemmyjah: Atheists and dodging Truth like vampires and sunlight |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by JessicaRabbit(f): 8:03am On Apr 26 |
Aemmyjah: 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? 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 9:58am On Apr 26 |
Hello Buda, This is TenQ I got banned replying one of your posts budaatum:And I have adopted ALL your definition as long as you apply your logic consistently. budaatum:How quick you took this personal. Your Reference was about Adam and Eve: and I reported that God as the potter has every right to make His Clay (Adam and Eve) anyhow He wants. The failure of Adam and Eve is the result of Death, Pain we have on the earth Seems youve not read this verse before: Isaiah 64:8 - But now, O Lord, You are our Father,We are the clay, and You our potter;And all of us are the work of Your hand. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 10:20am On Apr 26 |
Hello Jessica, This is TenQ, I got banned for posting 3 links to Buda JessicaRabbit: 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. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 10:24am On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit: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 |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by triplechoice(m): 10:33am On Apr 26 |
TenQ: You want tangible to mean what you want it to mean so you can fool everyone. You're not serious. You insisted tangible was used metaphorically in the statement, "Her grief is tangible" and I corrected you. Instead of acknowledging your error and just proceed with other things , you want to bring in confusion with this long talk Tangible in that sentence is an adjective describing the quality of her grief. That it's tangible . Because she felt it ( the emotions of grief) intensely, it affected her brain and body. Whether with her hands or body, the truth was that she felt it as tangible. It wasn't a figure of speech. If you can't understand this simple thing,then you will struggle to understand what others have been explaining in English language for you. And you have been struggling as can be seen from the evidence of your responses to others here. You're not responding directly. Meaning you don't fully comprehend what you read. Just use pidgin please . You won't be criticized for using that. Proficiency in English language is not a mark of intelligence. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 11:26am On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit:Its an error of perception. JessicaRabbit: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 JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit: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! JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit:Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience? JessicaRabbit: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 JessicaRabbit:The Rules of Logic should still hold isn't it? JessicaRabbit:Is this NOT True? JessicaRabbit:Its just a play of Logic Premise: 1. Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is NOT possible 2. There are Causes and their Effects Deduction: There must be A Primary Cause or an Uncaused First Cause that started the chaing of cause and Effect JessicaRabbit:Did Atoms also evolve? JessicaRabbit: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] JessicaRabbit: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? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 11:34am On Apr 26 |
Hi, This is TenQ I gat a ban from overzealous nairaland spam bot triplechoice:I think I have solved your problem. The only issue is that you MUST be consistent with how you use the Term TANGIBLE. 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 |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by JessicaRabbit(f): 1:15pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: 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. 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? 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! 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 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. 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 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: ...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: 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 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. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by JessicaRabbit(f): 1:20pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: 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. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by JessicaRabbit(f): 1:21pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: 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? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by triplechoice(m): 3:05pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: It's you who has the problem of not knowing what's a figure of speech. What you're trying to do now is medicine after death.. You're no more in a position to tell anyone here how they must use the word tangible or how they must be consistent with it. You're not just presenting an exposition on computer softwares, but using it as an extended metaphor to prove something you're not bold enough to mention. Not only that, you have turned the whole conversation into a debate,a competition, you must win at all cost. And so, sticking to your definition of tangible or how it must be consistently used is not only stupid,but also conceding defeat to you . You can't be the moderator and judge in a debate between you and your opponent. If I were to choose, I would choose both. But I'm not choosing here. Just go ahead using the software to prove indirectly that the God of the Bible ,even though you say it's not measurable, tangible ,exist or is real. That's your intention and everyone is fully aware of it I won't fall for your trap. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 3:09pm On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit:I think you are getting it wrong: no one knows the exact nature of Dark matter! We don't know whether Dark Matter is a kind of material or not, all we know that it has some serious magnetic fields and thus mass is inferred. The Effects of Dark matter is Inferred from from its gravitational effects on matter. I do not deny the ability of Dark Matter to interact. Examples of Realities that are not Tangible BUT only interact (has Effect on matter) which I have given in this thread include Gravitational Fields, Electric Fields and Magnetic Field. Dark matter is not considered tangible in the conventional sense even though it is believed to have mass and energy (when it is treated as a mass that distorts or bends the space-time fabric resulting in gravitational effect). It is safe to say that we don't know much about Dark Matter! When we have enough knowledge, we can be certain of how it is Tangible or how it is not |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by KnownUnknown: 3:11pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: Lmao. This is divine comedy. Since complexities requires a cause, the “uncaused first cause” must be very simple. No? He says meteors are not complex but atoms are. I wonder if astrophysicists are aware of “atomless meteors! Atomless eyes, atomless cells, atomless dick of the Holy Spirit! Fvck! |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by KnownUnknown: 3:18pm On Apr 26 |
You’re very funny guy!!!!
|
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 3:22pm On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit: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) |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 3:23pm On Apr 26 |
KnownUnknown:Many times you dont listen to yourself before you speak Question: 1. A Meteor and a Ball Pen, which is more complex? 2. Tell me, what is the function or purpose of a meteor? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by KnownUnknown: 3:25pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: You’re a very funny guy.
|
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 3:26pm On Apr 26 |
KnownUnknown:This is your answer to my questions? Question: 1. A Meteor and a Ball Pen, which is more complex? 2. Tell me, what is the function or purpose of a meteor? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 3:30pm On Apr 26 |
triplechoice:You have just explained why you refused to accept the definition of Tangible and now when I decided to adopt your definition, it still scares you. 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 |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by KnownUnknown: 3:30pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: Ask your simple uncaused first cause for the answer.
|
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by triplechoice(m): 3:46pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: Why do you want to know my position? You can't tell your opponent how they must debate with you or how they must use a, word to mean only one thing when they're different meanings attached to it. Just argue your points and everyone will understand you. That's all . You have been asked at different times to define spirit or to come up with your true intention behind your mention of a software. Each time, what you do is to ignore the question. Now the same you want your own questions to be answered or we choose something. You're not ready |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 4:35pm On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit:Perception of your claim. JessicaRabbit: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 JessicaRabbit: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 JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit:I will treat the implication of this on another page! JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit:I asked you a simple question: Is infinite Regress of Cause and Effect LOGICALLY possible from your experience? JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit:Mathematics and Logic has nothing to do with matter, therefore, they could predate time itself. JessicaRabbit:Truth should precede existence of matter . Truth is an aspect of LOGIC JessicaRabbit:Then , can you please show how an Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is possible? JessicaRabbit:We all agree that cause and Effect exist. JessicaRabbit: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 JessicaRabbit:I did not ask you about our understanding of atoms and molecules. I asked Did Atoms also evolved? JessicaRabbit:It is the Beauty of Language: Whatever you call it , so it is! Except it is a person who told you his/her name. JessicaRabbit: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. JessicaRabbit: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? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 5:41pm On Apr 26 |
triplechoice:The reason is that you have to be consistent with your definition of Tangibles Do you not trust your understanding of the word Tangible again? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by triplechoice(m): 6:25pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: What you don't know is this, The meaning of a word is determined by the context in which it's used. So for that, you cannot demand for consistency in meaning. Yes, you can't . Focus on yourself and put in the effort in telling your audience in what context you're using , tangible, so you're understood clearly. But the problem is, you're neither here nor there. One minute you're lecturing about software,the next you have jumped to criticising and insulting those whom you claim want physical quantification of God before they believe. Why ? If you're demanding for consistency, then you must be consistent yourself. |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 6:54pm On Apr 26 |
triplechoice:Of course for the same context, no difference. So, you will be consistent with your definition. First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible Position 1: If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by triplechoice(m): 7:24pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ:You're very vague here. Which " for the same context" are you talking about? . You're clowing yourself. If you have no hidden agenda, which has been exposed in your conversation with Jessica ,why should you bother yourself with ,the consistency of the word, tangible or intangible when discussing software? A software ,when defined in some dictionaries is described as intangible, but not the same intangible as spirit. This was why I said the meaning of word is determined by the context in which it's used. You haven't created any real context yet you're looking for consistency. Are you discussing spirit or a computer software? |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by budaatum: 8:14pm On Apr 26 |
NairaLTQ: Apply what logic consistently? Though I know you know I do. We are talking about definitions, please, and have struggled over many pages on it, so I don't think we are ready for logic yet. Words, for users of them by some of us here, are fluid, and may mean different things in different contexts, which is why it is good that you define the words you contest, so asking for the sort of open ended consistency you wish for may meet exceptions, do note. NairaLTQ: I have read that verse before, Tenq. What I have not done is allow such a rubbish verse to become a part of the software that programs me such that I would stupidly equate myself with clay while some are potters and some are aspiring to be the work and even the Your Hand O Lord.
|
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by Aemmyjah(m): 8:45pm On Apr 26 |
JessicaRabbit: Madam It's intelligent of you to focus on my question Thank you |
Re: The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption That Everything REAL Must Be TANGIBLE by NairaLTQ: 9:39pm On Apr 26 |
triplechoice:The Question was simple: Is the Software WITHIN the memory of a HDD Tangible or not tangible? Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the SOftware being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware. I only ask, can you be consistent in saying that ANY Nomenclature that has Effects on the Physical Hardware is Tangible? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (11) (Reply)
The Word ["amen"] / Its The Bible God's Word: ? / Pastor Kay Goes Home To Be With The Lord.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 240 |