₦airaland Forum

JessicaRabbit:
Sure, let's focus! But before we do, is a rock hurtling through space considered "having a cause" in your book? Because if a giant space boulder qualifies, then the answer might be a lot more interesting than a simple yes or no, wouldn't you agree?

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

JessicaRabbit:
The pen, much like the watch, is indeed a product of intelligent design -- human intelligence, to be precise. But to leap from human-designed objects to the natural world is to compare apples and oranges -- or in this case, pens and petunias. The components of a pen are designed to fit together because they were created with a specific purpose in mind.

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't work towards a purpose; it works through natural selection. Traits that confer a survival advantage are passed on, while those that don't tend to disappear. Over vast stretches of time, this process can lead to the emergence of complex organisms, but there's no foresight or planning involved. It's all about what works. So, when we're talking about complexity in nature, we're really talking about something that arises out of simplicity. A single cell, for instance, might not seem like much, but give it a few billion years, and you might just end up with a blue whale, a baobab, or a human being capable of designing a ballpoint pen. And let's not forget that complexity can also arise from non-biological processes. Snowflakes, with their intricate patterns, form through the simple process of water vapor crystallizing in the cold. No intelligent snowflake designer required.

TLDR: the complexity of living things is the result of natural processes, not a sign of an intelligent designer. And as for the paper? Well, that's just wood pulp that's been processed by -- you guessed it -- intelligent humans! The trees it came from, though? Purely the work of nature's own brand of artistry. No divine pen required.

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



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

Every System has a Purpose or Function!

TenQ:
What is wrong with you people?

I used a definition of Tangible to mean anything that has mass or energy or dimension, you were all screaming "blueberry" that anything that has effect on objects are tangible.

Now, I decided to go with you AND adopt your definition: but this is still a problem.

The only reason is that the implication is not favourable to you as you cannot be consistent with your definitions.

That is atheists for you.

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
On your part or mine?
Bingo! You've almost grasped the point.
Electrons undeniably existed before 1849, just like gravity existed before Newton. The key difference is that we didn't understand them. We couldn't explain certain phenomena (like the behavior of light) until the concept of the electron emerged. Now, back to Neptune. We had a theory that explained most planetary motion...until it didn't. Unexpected observations (Uranus's off-kilter orbit) forced us to revise that theory, leading to the discovery of Neptune. So, yes, electrons existed before we knew about them, but unlike Neptune, they weren't a missing piece in an existing framework. They were a whole new concept needed to explain entirely new phenomena.

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

JessicaRabbit:
Now you have presented two positions on tangibility, and while both are interesting thought experiments, I wouldn't say either perfectly captures the way I see things.

Position 1: Tangibility as Producing Effects

This definition is broad and encompasses many things we wouldn't typically consider "tangible" in everyday language. Gravity, for instance, undeniably has effects, but we can't exactly hold it in our hands. Let's not forget that science deals with a vast spectrum of existence, from the mind-bendingly small (subatomic particles) to the cosmically large (black holes). Tangibility, in that sense, becomes a spectrum as well. It's true that we can't directly touch software, but its effects are demonstrably real. If I give you a specific set of instructions (software) to bake a cake, and you follow them, you get a delicious cake -- a very tangible outcome. The software itself might not be "touchable," but its impact on the physical world is undeniable. Your definition however gets a bit tricky when we consider things like mathematics or logic. These are more abstract concepts that describe relationships and processes, not necessarily things that directly interact with the physical world. Do they have effects? Certainly, in the sense that they allow us to understand and manipulate the world around us. But their "effects" are more indirect.

Position 2: Tangibility based on Measurement

This definition is more grounded in the physical world. It focuses on things we can measure with our senses or instruments -- mass, dimension, energy, and time. Here, software falls short. It doesn't have a physical form we can measure directly. Something you might have missed though is that this definition also excludes some things we generally consider real. Can you directly measure gravity with your senses? Not quite. We infer its existence through its effects on objects. Similarly, magnetic fields are invisible but have undeniable effects. So, where does this leave us? I propose a nuanced view of tangibility. There's a clear distinction between things that are purely abstract concepts (like love or justice) and things that have demonstrable effects on the physical world, even if those effects are indirect. Software falls somewhere in the middle. It's a set of instructions, a blueprint for manipulating information. It doesn't have a physical form, but its effects are undeniably real. Similarly, concepts like gravity or magnetic fields might not be directly measurable in the way a brick is, but their existence is inferred through their well-established effects.

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

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

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

Without a concrete commitment to definitions, we go nowhere!

JessicaRabbit:
As for your analogy of finding a "computer" on Mars. If we discovered a device manipulating information in a way analogous to software, I still insist that it would simply show nothing beyond the probability that another intelligent being has figured out a way to process information. It wouldn't necessarily prove a divine programmer.

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
You make a fair point about the scientific jury being out on plant consciousness. But don't forget that you initially presented a very specific understanding of consciousness that seemed to equate basic stimuli response with sentience. Also, for all their marvels of engineering, thermostats are not exactly pondering the meaning of existence. They're simply following pre-programmed instructions. That's a far cry from the subjective experiences we associate with consciousness in humans and animals. I see you're setting a major distinction between consciousness and sensing information. This is a crucial step. There's a clear distinction between reacting to stimuli and actually having subjective experiences -- feelings, thoughts, qualia (the "what it's like" aspect of experience). The big question here is: where do we draw the line? Is a dog experiencing the world in a similar way to a human? What about simpler creatures? This is where the conversation about consciousness gets truly fascinating, and frankly, a bit mind-bending.

But there is good news! Neuroscience is making incredible strides in understanding the brain and its role in consciousness. We may not have all the answers yet, but the more we delve into the complexities of the nervous system, the closer we get to a more nuanced understanding of this remarkable phenomenon.

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
Listen, I understand that faith is a personal experience for Christians. There's no denying that. However, personal experiences don't translate to universal truths, especially when it comes to the existence of deities. Let's explore this "subjective experience" a bit further. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? It's a well-documented psychological phenomenon where we tend to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs and downplay anything that contradicts them. This can be a powerful force when it comes to religious experiences. Here's a thought experiment: if someone claimed to have a deeply personal experience with Zeus throwing lightning bolts, most Christians would likely scoff. Why? Because it doesn't align with their specific faith. This highlights the subjective nature of these experiences. Now, I'm not saying your experiences aren't real to you. They undoubtedly are. But the key question is: how do we differentiate between a genuine encounter with the divine and a powerful psychological experience fueled by confirmation bias or cultural conditioning? Science offers a robust methodology for evaluating evidence and building a coherent understanding of the universe. It may not provide all the answers (yet!), but it thrives on skepticism and the constant reevaluation of existing knowledge. At the end of the day, it's still your choice. You can embrace faith as a subjective truth, but you surely can't expect it to hold the same weight as objective evidence in a conversation about the origins of the universe or the existence of deities.

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

JessicaRabbit:
Absolutely possible. It's a head-scratcher, but logic doesn't hinge on needing a tidy "first cause." I'd rather we explore actual evidence, not philosophical puzzles.

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
Science doesn't need to provide a definitive origin story to disprove Zeus' lightning bolts. It just needs a better explanation, which, throughout history, science has a pretty good track record of doing.

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
If math exists outside time, how come we pesky humans need time to understand it?

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

JessicaRabbit:
Logic relies on a universe to make sense of. We can't have true statements about nothing.

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

JessicaRabbit:
We can explore infinite regress as a concept, but science prioritizes workable explanations for what we can observe.

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

JessicaRabbit:
My dear, we agree on breathing too, but that doesn't mean a fish understands the concept of air.

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

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

JessicaRabbit:
Classic appeal to incredulity. Just because we can't grasp how something infinite works, doesn't mean it can't exist. Maybe the universe is a fractal of existence, endlessly self-referential, or perhaps time itself is a loop -- your 'first cause' might be right next to you, completely invisible because you're stuck in a linear mindset. The point is, the absence of a clear cause in our current understanding doesn't equate to the absence of a cause altogether. The universe might be far weirder than a 'first cause' fairy tale."

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

JessicaRabbit:
Of course, they don't evolve in the Darwinian sense. They lack the key ingredients: inheritance and variation through reproduction. They're more like fixed characters in a cosmic play.

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

JessicaRabbit:
True. Language is a tool we crafted, a way to make sense of the world around us. It can be poetic, misleading, or hilariously nonsensical (see "moist" for reference). Just because we call something a person with a name doesn't make it so. If I name my toaster "NairaLTQ," that doesn't imbue it with sentience or a toast-making calling. The universe, in all its complex glory, likely operates on principles beyond human labels and narratives.

Here we agree perfectly: and especially your last sentence!

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

JessicaRabbit:
Can I make an "eye"? Sure, with enough spare parts and a good screwdriver! Complexity isn't magic, it's emergent. Sandcastle vs. eye? False dichotomy. Both intricate, built from simpler parts.

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

JessicaRabbit:
Excellent question! We don't know all the specifics yet, but science is actively exploring it. Maybe it was clay minerals acting as templates, or perhaps prebiotic soup shenanigans. The point is, there are natural processes that could have nudged these reactions in a life-friendly direction. No magic needed, just the power of time and the right conditions. DNA itself likely emerged from simpler molecules, like RNA, in a gradual dance of increasing complexity. It's a captivating story waiting to be unraveled, far more thrilling than a pre-written script by a divine hand.

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

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

TenQ:
What is wrong with you people?

I used a definition of Tangible to mean anything that has mass or energy or dimension, you were all screaming "blueberry" that anything that has effect on objects are tangible.

Now, I decided to go with you AND adopt your definition: but this is still a problem.

The only reason is that the implication is not favourable to you as you cannot be consistent with your definitions.

Why would it not be favourable to me?

TenQ:
Tell me how the definition of things that are tangible violate the principle that such will either have mass or dimension or energy?


You decided to broaden the definition of Tangible to everything that has effect on matter.

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

TenQ:
Meaning that to Atheists here on Nairaland:
Mathematics
Logic
Software
Consciousness
Information
Gravitational Fields
Electric Fields
Magnetic Fields
Are ALL Tangible because you can see the effect they have on other things

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

TenQ:
Now, I adopted your definition : all I ask is that you be consistent with your definition and like cowards, you are running away with your self-delusions!

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

StillDtruth:
That is atheists for you.

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

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

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

Lol! You wish. You what? You wish.

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

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



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

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

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

Without a concrete commitment to definitions, we go nowhere!


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

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


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

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

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




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



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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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



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



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



Here we agree perfectly: and especially your last sentence!

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


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



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

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

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

FRANCISTOWN:
Lol! You wish. You what? You wish.

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

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

TheBillyonaire:
TenQ

What is the purpose of this thread?

There is a vacuum in your understanding of Universal Cosmology, but in your arrogance, you have assumed that you know it all so by default you set an entropy in motion and no sane person is ready for energy vampirism.

So do you want to achieve with this thread?

For benefit of all doubts - Divine Spirit is precursor of Lord Gods of Planets of Existence. Lord Gods lead all other Gods. Gods are ancient astronauts and scientists that designed Humanity and humans are capable of joining League of Gods by gaining the intelligence to join the League of Cosmic Super Intelligent minds that manage the omniverse.

So God Consciousness is a level of Consciousness, just as Christ Consciousness governs over AI Consciousness. This is the Secret Trinity of Spirit.

Divine Spirit permeates all and is beyond Gods.

Sir u are more of cosmic than of reality, in other words IMAGINATION!

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

Show me one place and shop whining like a fledgling.

StillDtruth:
That is atheists for you.

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

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

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

They want a platform of no accountability. They don't want to stick to a position because they know that doing such will expose their hypocrisy.

What talking to CHristiena, they are looking for objective evidence But when you flip their claims over, they don't want it scrutinised objectively.

FRANCISTOWN:
Why would it not be favourable to me?

When your definition of tangible is OBJECTIVELY Defined, we can test many of your claims and stand it with your definition.

But you are afraid of commiting to a testable definition!
This is a shame to all of you!

You are all noise and no bite

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


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


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

For Clarity, do you admit and stand the definition:

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

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

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

Good for you.

You can observe that discussion between us is formal, professional and devoid of insults.

This is how to chat meaningfully!

FRANCISTOWN:
Show me one place and shop whining like a fledgling.

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

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

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

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

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

Tangible and Relatable proofs

TenQ:
Good for you.

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

I guess babysitting ignorance is being professional. 😂😂

TenQ:
For Clarity, do you admit and stand the definition:

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

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

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

Information is on the line.

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

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

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

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


Tangible and Relatable proofs

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

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

When you are under scrutiny : you want tangible to mean a vague "having effect" on objects.

What would be a relatable proof for a software WITHIN an AI machine?

FRANCISTOWN:
I guess babysitting ignorance is being professional. 😂😂

I guess you speak of yourself!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kindly, show me where I said that.

NairaLTQ:
I guess you speak of yourself!

Nope! For myself.

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

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

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

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

This is what we mean by elongated part of transcription.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong!
Consciousness has no causalities.

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


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

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

TenQ:
There is a difference between knowing and Believing
Knowing:
1. We dont Believe that 1+5=6 because we can 100% verify that this is the outcome of our position remain static even if you go to the moon or mars to do it.
2. We don't Believe that Bola Ahmed Tinubu is the president of Nigeria. It is among the things we know with 100% certainty.
Believing:
We hold a position of Belief and not knowledge anytime our position has an iota of uncertainty.

All these are still Beliefs: because the outcome even though may be plausible (based on some insider information) is not solely under the control of anyone.

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

How can the probability of an event occur and not occurring be beliefs?

kkins25:
How can the probability of an event occur and not occurring be beliefs?

It is about certainty sir.

If something is 100% certain: ANY position you hold is in the realm of Knowing

If any even is less than 100% certain, ANY position you hold is the the realm of Belief!


It is not Rocket Science sir

FRANCISTOWN:
You brought tangible to our door step. The burden of explanation rests on you.
Kindly, show me where I said that.

And explicitly I have described tangible as any existence that has either mass or dimension or energy.

You are the one introducing vague definitions and now, you are fleeing from the consequence of your choice.

I said:
"When relating with Christians: you (ATHEISTS) want tangible to be with measurable mass or energy or dimensions"
It was in the context of "you Atheists"

TenQ:
It is about certainty sir.

If something is 100% certain: ANY position you hold is in the realm of Knowing

If any even is less than 100% certain, ANY position you hold is the the realm of Belief!


It is not Rocket Science sir

So God falls into category of belief, right?

TenQ:
And explicitly I have described tangible as any existence that has either mass or dimension or energy.

You are the one introducing vague definitions and now, you are fleeing from the consequence of your choice.

I said:
"When relating with Christians: you (ATHEISTS) want tangible to be with measurable mass or energy or dimensions"
It was in the context of "you Atheists"

Of course. If God is not tangible, then it means his existence relies on the minds of people.

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

Does mathematics exist or not?

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

As a person who knows computer, you know that the INFORMATION (eg. Software) is different from the MEDIUM through which it can be conveyed.

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

This is what we mean by elongated part of transcription.

As a computer specialist, you are well aware that any information is a sequence of CODES which is like meaningless noise UNLESS the TARGET can decode the code by which the strings of symbols are compiled.
This even though Mathematics is REAL, the strings of codes for transmitting it is jargons UNLESS the target is initiated in DECODING the strings of Characters.

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

I guess you mean that Consciousness require ability to FEEL (not sense) the available signal broadcast

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

Your people are saying that you can see the Effects mathematics have on things, therefore they are tangible.

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

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

I think you really need to understand elementary physics, not just read. By then, we'd have a more coherent conversation.
With the few conversations that I've had with thiests on this platform. It further strengthens my beliefs that many of you believe such absurdities basically because you don't understand simple physics and science in general.

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

You want to start again with feigning superiority in knowledge.
Lets chart like adults.
I was only reporting the position of your fellow atheists on this thread: My position had always been that
Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life as in Consciousness
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields
Except you disagree with the above.

FRANCISTOWN:
You are wrong!
Consciousness has no causalities.

You are wrong as I NEVER implied that:

I said: Experience show us that Consciousness is Real.
By the Atheists definition of "causing EFFECTS on biological bodies", it (should) falls under the term TANGIBLE!

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

You have forgotten that words may have different definition depending on the context

The statement:
I have with me in this Hall my "learned colleagues!":
does not imply that the rest of the people in the hall [b]are NOT educated or stupid.
[/b]

Therefore: I let you know my use of words for Tangible (which of course is TRUE) and you make known your use of the word "Tangible" which I have also adopted for the purpose of this discussion.

kkins25:
Of course. If God is not tangible, then it means his existence relies on the minds of people.

Unfortunately, I don't know what you define as tangible in this context