kkins25:


So God falls into category of belief, right?

For Atheist, YES
AND
For Theists ,YES


For Christians however we proceed from Believing to having FAITH!

TenQ:

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

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

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

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

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

Without a concrete commitment to definitions, we go nowhere!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we agree perfectly: and especially your last sentence!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TenQ:

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

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

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

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

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



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

Every System has a Purpose or Function!

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

TenQ:

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

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

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

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

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

Easy.

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

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

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

There you go!

Aemmyjah:


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

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

JessicaRabbit:
Easy.
(1) Despite extensive searches, no credible evidence directly supports the existence of a deity.
(2) If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity existed, it's unclear why suffering, injustice, and evil persist.
(3) Science and reason adequately explain the world's workings without requiring a supernatural creator.

There you go!

You're just so intelligent. I go just dey skim through your post, dey wan dey dey your side, dey wan dey live rest of my life with you, make you dey school me and our children, make meself dey school and spoon you, make I dey zuzu for you still dey protect you, ehn. Chai, Jessica, you special gan o, Olohun ngbo, Ajeh.☹🙅
We suppose know ourselves pass like this na.

Ok, how have you been all these while? Have you been very happy, and swirling smoothly with the Earth, lately?

JessicaRabbit:

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

You have a way of reading unintended meanings into simply stated facts.
I said:
Our Ignorance of the Tangibility of a Reality has nothing to do with its existence.
That is:
An Object's reality or tangibility is NOT determined by our knowledge of it.

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

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

It is easy to test each of the postulates!

JessicaRabbit:

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

You seem to have a way of reading unintended meanings into simply stated facts.

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

I believe we've trashed this out!

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

And what is your objective proof of this?

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

LOL!

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

It is based on probabilities from informed science.

JessicaRabbit:

Easy.
(1) Despite extensive searches, no credible evidence directly supports the existence of a deity.
(2) If an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity existed, it's unclear why suffering, injustice, and evil persist.
(3) Science and reason adequately explain the world's workings without requiring a supernatural creator.
There you go!

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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


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

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

JessicaRabbit:


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

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

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

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

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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

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


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

TenQ:

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

The only thing I refuse to reconcile with is your subjective definition of tangible as things that can only be measured with regards to mass, dimension and time. This has it's implications.

The moment you tried to solve a challenge, you raised another. You are only viewing dimension in it's spatial extent, physical properties and coordinates and structures of object.
Dimension means many things and different things in different discipline of knowledge. It is different in geometry, it is different in algebra, it is different in computing and in physics.

Even in physics, dimension is used differently in different topics.

Dimension doesn't have to always be directly proportional to physical properties.

Velocity has a dimension. Velocity is not a physical phenomenon. But the dimension of velocity is equal to the dividence of length by time.

Therefore, abstract things and ideologies also have dimensions.

It is possible to say "This is the height of foolishness". But foolishness doesn't have any physical properties to measure.

I don't even need to talk about the concept of time for time itself will fail me.

Therefore, I cannot agree with your notion. I maintain a neutral position until you can show me one thing that is not truly tangible in any form.

FRANCISTOWN:

The only thing I refuse to reconcile with is your subjective definition of tangible as things that can only be measured with regards to mass, dimension and time. This has it's implications.

The moment you tried to solve a challenge, you raised another. You are only viewing dimension in it's spatial extent, physical properties and coordinates and structures of object.
Dimension means many things and different things in different discipline of knowledge. It is different in geometry, it is different in algebra, it is different in computing and in physics.

Even in physics, dimension is used differently in different topics.

Dimensions doesn't have to always be directly proportional to physical properties.

Velocity has a dimension. Velocity is not a physical phenomenon. But the dimension of velocity is equal to the dividence of length by time.

Therefore, abstract things and ideologies also have dimensions.

It is possible to say "This is the height of foolishness". But foolishness doesn't have any physical properties to measure.

I don't even need to talk about the concept of time for time itself will fail me.

Therefore, I cannot agree with your notion. I maintain a neutral position until you can show me one thing that is not truly tangible in any form.

It seems you have lost yourself in the maze of discusion.
Yes, I defined Tangibles in terms of Mass, Dimension (length, Area and Volume) and Energy and of course these can relate with time.

BUT,
I discovered that many of you atheists would rather define the word Tangible broadly as Any IDENTITY that produces Effect on matter: meaning that in addition to Examples from my definition of Tangible, it consists of Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Gravitational Fields, Information, Mathematics, Logic, Software and Consciousness as they all fall under this category of Tangible things.

NOW,
I have adopted your definition AND I ONLY ask you to be consistent with this Definition
This has now become a problem for you!

It seems you don't want an OBJECTIVE definition of the word "Tangibles": how do you now want us to TEST your beliefs? This is insincerity on your part!

CHAI!!! See as thread don dey hot. People's brains don dey catch fire

TenQ:

It seems you have lost yourself in the maze of discusion.
Yes, I defined Tangibles in terms of Mass, Dimension (length, Area and Volume) and Energy and of course these can relate with time.

BUT,
I discovered that many of you atheists would rather define the word [b]Tangible broadly as Any IDENTITY that produces Effect on matter:[/b] meaning that in addition to Examples from my definition of Tangible, it consists of Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Gravitational Fields, Information, Mathematics, Logic, Software and Consciousness as they all fall under this category of Tangible things.

NOW,
I have adopted your definition AND I ONLY ask you to be consistent with this Definition
This has now become a problem for you!

It seems you don't want an OBJECTIVE definition of the word "Tangibles": how do you now want us to TEST your beliefs? This is insincerity on your part!

Not at all. I'm consistent with the definition of tangible.
You are the one who is trying to lead a witness thru projection.
I remember I said it in one of your threads that there are different kinds atheists.
The only thing that is common to all atheists is that we reject the believes that deities exist.

What would make anyone an atheist is very subjective. A personal realization. So, atheists don't have a code of conduct or constitutional obligations. As long as you reject the beliefs of the existence of deities. You are welcome.

Therefore, no atheist shoulders the responsibility of defending the opinion of another atheist, unless if he agreed to such opinion himself.

If you're really interested in testing my beliefs. You should ask me why I personally reject the beliefs that deities exist.

Let's assume(just an assumption) there are real things that are not perceptible by any natural sense or with laboratory aids. Can anyone be sure such things are deities? Evidently No.

So whether some atheists believe in tangible or intangible things is not a fundamental ground in the league of atheists.

If a God existed. It would never be a topic of debate. A God that needs people to defend his existence is basically not a God. It's more of a fairy.

Due to the ambiguity of the word "Tangible". I maintain the dictionary meaning.

Having this in mind. Shall we begin proper?

If I agreed to everything you've said about tangible and about what atheists say.

Now, pray, please tell me what you think atheists have done wrong or where you think we are getting it wrong.

This should be the thesis for our discussion.Enchante

FRANCISTOWN:

Not at all. I'm consistent with the definition of tangible.
You are the one who is trying to lead a witness thru projection.
I remember I said it in one of your threads that there are different kinds atheists.
The only thing that is common to all atheists is that we reject the believes that deities exist.

I thus the position of you atheists is aptly summarised by exactly how I framed the definition

Atheists Preferred Definition of Tangible :
Any Identity or Nomenclature that Produces Effects on matter.

This include every reality or nomenclature that has either Mass, dimension or energy including identities like Magnetic fields, Electric Fields, Gravitational fields, Software, Logic, Mathematics, Information, Software, Consciousness etc.

Is your definition (which you consider as the dictionary definitions) not clearly taken care of with this description above?

FRANCISTOWN:

What would make anyone an atheist is very subjective. A personal realization. So, atheists don't have a code of conduct or constitutional obligations. As long as you reject the beliefs of the existence of deities. You are welcome.

Therefore, no atheist shoulders the responsibility of defending the opinion of another atheist, unless if he agreed to such opinion himself.

You are the first Atheist on Nairaland who with admit to the highlighted in yellow. Ordinarily, Atheists on NL have judged Christians on the basis of the SUBJECTIVE nature of our spiritual experiences.

FRANCISTOWN:

If you're really interested in testing my beliefs. You should ask me why I personally reject the beliefs that deities exist.

I hope I am hearing you correctly : Do you REJECT the Belief s that Deities exist or you Lack a Belief in any Deities?

I consider the Term: "Lacking a Belief in Deities" to be nonsensical at best.

Why do you think that the Physical Evidences you see around you for the existence of an Intelligent mind behind the Machine called the Earth with its content an insufficient?

FRANCISTOWN:

Let's assume(just an assumption) there are real things that are not perceptible by any natural sense or with laboratory aids. Can anyone be sure such things are deities? Evidently No.

I wrote about spatial dimensions a few months ago. You might want to read it up.

The summary is this:
If there was a Higher Dimension than our 3D space (Eg nD, where n>3). Would we be able to detect their presence with ANY instrument designed for our 3D space?
Can we even perceive the higher Dimension of Existence even if superimposed on our 3D existence?

Here it is:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm

FRANCISTOWN:

So whether some atheists believe in tangible or intangible things is not a fundamental ground in the league of atheists.

As long as the definition of Tangible or Intangible will NOT be used by atheists when proposing their arguments against God.

FRANCISTOWN:

If a God existed. It would never be a topic of debate. A God that needs people to defend his existence is basically not a God. It's more of a fairy.

1. The confluence of almost impossible stagaring statistical odds on the earth alone is enough reason to prove that an Unseen Intelligent Force is behind it.

2. The fact that consciousness seem to require a Pre-Programing (with data and instructions) is another logical proof for me. Have you noticed that all the faculties required for Consciousness require some level of consciousness?

3. The fact that we have very complex interdependent systems working for a particular objective is another logical proof for me.

4. The fact that the physical universe began about 13.8billion years ago from a point of singularity (when mass, space and time were simultaneously created) is a physical proof for me. What pushed the singularity out of a state of stability into the expansion we call the big bang? I say, that that did it must be outside space, time and matter: I call Him God

5. The fact that Entropy of the Universe is ALWAYS increasing is another physical proof for me. It tells me that our universe is NOT eternal: it will come to an end on day "Heat Death" is sure. The law of Entropy tells me that Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is IMPOSSIBLE : Meaning that the Universe couldn't have created itself

6. Best of ALL, my subjective EXPERIENCE of God the Creator that made me know Him as a reality.

Each one of these is a TOPIC of discussion in their own rights.

FRANCISTOWN:

Due to the ambiguity of the word "Tangible". I maintain the dictionary meaning.

I think I have condensed the Definition enough for it to be UNAMBIGUOUS as long as we are not using the term as a figure of speech.

FRANCISTOWN:

Having this in mind. Shall we begin proper?

If I agreed to everything you've said about tangible and about what atheists say.

Now, pray, please tell me what you think atheists have done wrong or where you think we are getting it wrong.

This should be the thesis for our discussion.Enchante

I think first of all, there are different kinds of Atheists
1. Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him
2. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an INTELLECTUAL point of view
3. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an EMOTIONAL point of view
4. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a CULTURAL/SOCIAL point of view
5. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a WANNABE ATHEIST point of view

Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him to me are the True Atheist : for they know exactly what they are doing. These are Never Agnostics, many combine a strong emotional feeling against God. You will find some of them still spiritual but this time their allegiance is to Satan and everything he entails.

Atheists who call themselves Agnostics are fooling themselves. On one side they claim THEY DON'T KNOW but on the other side, they firmly reject God the Creator.


Now, what is the problem of Atheists :
1. They replace the unseen God with science as final authority. The forget that science objective is to try to understand and explain what already exist
2. They assume God must be of a physical nature (so they expect to be able to see or measure him)
3. They assume that the laws of Physics and Chemistry is sufficient to describe the creation
4. They firmly oppose what they don't understand about the purpose of existence of man.
5. They refuse to comprehend that humans are perfect semblance to AI robots who are granted freewill.
6. They assume they know what a "Good God" should do with the earth and people in it.
7. They obviously do not know that there is a purpose for human existence.


If you ask me, these above are the weakness of the position of atheists.

TenQ:

I thus the position of you atheists is aptly summarised by exactly how I framed the definition

Atheists Preferred Definition of Tangible :
Any Identity or Nomenclature that Produces Effects on matter.

This include every reality or nomenclature that has either Mass, dimension or energy including identities like Magnetic fields, Electric Fields, Gravitational fields, Software, Logic, Mathematics, Information, Software, Consciousness etc.

Is your definition (which you consider as the dictionary definitions) not clearly taken care of with this description above?


You are the first Atheist on Nairaland who with admit to the highlighted in yellow. Ordinarily, Atheists on NL have judged Christians on the basis of the SUBJECTIVE nature of our spiritual experiences.



I hope I am hearing you correctly : Do you REJECT the Belief s that Deities exist or you Lack a Belief in any Deities?

I consider the Term: "Lacking a Belief in Deities" to be nonsensical at best.

Why do you think that the Physical Evidences you see around you for the existence of an Intelligent mind behind the Machine called the Earth with its content an insufficient?



I wrote about spatial dimensions a few months ago. You might want to read it up.

The summary is this:
If there was a Higher Dimension than our 3D space (Eg nD, where n>3). Would we be able to detect their presence with ANY instrument designed for our 3D space?
Can we even perceive the higher Dimension of Existence even if superimposed on our 3D existence?

Here it is:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm




As long as the definition of Tangible or Intangible will NOT be used by atheists when proposing their arguments against God.



1. The confluence of almost impossible stagaring statistical odds on the earth alone is enough reason to prove that an Unseen Intelligent Force is behind it.

2. The fact that consciousness seem to require a Pre-Programing (with data and instructions) is another logical proof for me. Have you noticed that all the faculties required for Consciousness require some level of consciousness?

3. The fact that we have very complex interdependent systems working for a particular objective is another logical proof for me.

4. The fact that the physical universe began about 13.8billion years ago from a point of singularity (when mass, space and time were simultaneously created) is a physical proof for me. What pushed the singularity out of a state of stability into the expansion we call the big bang? I say, that that did it must be outside space, time and matter: I call Him God

5. The fact that Entropy of the Universe is ALWAYS increasing is another physical proof for me. It tells me that our universe is NOT eternal: it will come to an end on day "Heat Death" is sure. The law of Entropy tells me that Infinite Regress of Cause and Effect is IMPOSSIBLE : Meaning that the Universe couldn't have created itself

6. Best of ALL, my subjective EXPERIENCE of God the Creator that made me know Him as a reality.

Each one of these is a TOPIC of discussion in their own rights.


I think I have condensed the Definition enough for it to be UNAMBIGUOUS as long as we are not using the term as a figure of speech.



I think first of all, there are different kinds of Atheists
1. Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him
2. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an INTELLECTUAL point of view
3. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from an EMOTIONAL point of view
4. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a CULTURAL/SOCIAL point of view
5. Atheist who arrive at their CHOICE to Reject the Belief in Deities from a WANNABE ATHEIST point of view

Atheists WHO KNOW God but made a CHOICE to Be Independent from Him to me are the True Atheist : for they know exactly what they are doing. These are Never Agnostics, many combine a strong emotional feeling against God. You will find some of them still spiritual but this time their allegiance is to Satan and everything he entails.

Atheists who call themselves Agnostics are fooling themselves. On one side they claim THEY DON'T KNOW but on the other side, they firmly reject God the Creator.


Now, what is the problem of Atheists :
1. They replace the unseen God with science as final authority. The forget that science objective is to try to understand and explain what already exist
2. They assume God must be of a physical nature (so they expect to be able to see or measure him)
3. They assume that the laws of Physics and Chemistry is sufficient to describe the creation
4. They firmly oppose what they don't understand about the purpose of existence of man.
5. They refuse to comprehend that humans are perfect semblance to AI robots who are granted freewill.
6. They assume they know what a "Good God" should do with the earth and people in it.
7. They obviously do not know that there is a purpose for human existence.


If you ask me, these above are the weakness of the position of atheists.

I'm sorry. Everything you wrote were not needed at all.

Let's leave tangibility aside. Come at atheists head-on and don't loiter around the facts.

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.


1. The first prerequisite (the fundamental laws of existence sustaining true for all observers at all frames of reference)

• Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence. i.e,
i. They cannot be seen by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
ii. They cannot be heard by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
iii. They cannot be observed by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids)
iii. They do not have effects on things that everyone can observe, and they are not observable themselves (with or without laboratory aids). Therefore, they are not interactive.
iv. They are not perceptible(with or without laboratory equipments)
v. There is no physical law that supports the possibilities of the existence of deities.
vi. Deities cannot be subjected to any scientific procedure.

These above are what atheists say about deities.

The ideology of the existence of a God is even the most stupid thing ever. Like, what's a God?

FRANCISTOWN:

I'm sorry. Everything you wrote were not needed at all.

Let's leave tangibility aside. Come at atheists head-on and don't loiter around the facts.

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

I am sure you are aware that this is simply your CLAIM or OPINION and you have NO single Objective manner to prove that you are 100% correct.

FRANCISTOWN:

I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.
1. The first prerequisite (the fundamental laws of existence sustaining true for all observers at all frames of reference)

• Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence. i.e,
i. They cannot be seen by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
ii. They cannot be heard by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
iii. They cannot be observed by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids)
iii. They do not have effects on things that everyone can observe, and they are not observable themselves (with or without laboratory aids). Therefore, they are not interactive.
iv. They are not perceptible(with or without laboratory equipments)
v. There is no physical law that supports the possibilities of the existence of deities.
vi. Deities cannot be subjected to any scientific procedure.

These above are what atheists say about deities.

The ideology of the existence of a God is even the most stupid thing ever. Like, what's a God?

I thing my post to you answerer ALL this?

Let's do a thought experiment.
Known Facts:
1. Life began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist
Proposition:
IF our Universe was created by an ENTITY, (a number of deductions are possible)
Deduction from Proposition and known Facts:
a. Such an Entity must be beyond TIME (for time did NOT exist yet) and exist beyond our time t=0
b. Such and Entity must not be made up of MATTER (as matter did not exist yet)
c. Such and Entity must not occupy SPACE (as SPACE did not exist yet)
Conclusion:
This mean that there is NO Experimental Technique or INSTRUMENT that can be used to Detect or View this Entity UNLESS the Entity make Himself known

These above break down your premise leading to excuse that: Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence
Of course, these are the reasons you cannot bring God into the laboratory. The Creator of the Universe exist in a realm and dimension different from ours

If this is your major claim, I am sorry, It doesn't hold water!



I asked you to read:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm


Your Question (Bolded):
God is the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything in the Physical Universe!

TenQ:

I am sure you are aware that this is simply your CLAIM or OPINION and you have NO single Objective manner to prove that you are 100% correct.


I thing my post to you answerer ALL this?

Let's do a thought experiment.
Known Facts:
1. Life began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist

Lol! I was expecting this. As usual, the same arguments theists use to support their outlandish claim. 😂😂

Now lemme tell you where many theists lack critical reasoning.

In the grand calculus of the universe. If the level of entropy of the universe started decreasing and time started to move backwards. The space begins to shrink and everything goes back into the single entity before the big bang.
Let's call that single entity A. Alpha.

Now here is where I want to provoke your frontal lobe.

1. We can't establish the fact whether there was any other entity aside A. Alpha.

2. Even if there were other entities. Such entities can never have an established connection or relationship with A.Alpha and it's elements. How do I know this? The single entity A.Alpha exploded into nothingness and it has constantly be expanding.
The expansion of space time could only be possible if it's expands into nothing or it repels it's surrounding entities.

Therefore, anything that would have a relationship and connection with A.Alpha must had been within A.Alpha before the explosion since our universe is independently parallel. As there has not been any statistically significant evidence of any other universe.

Scientists only assume that, since we ourselves are in a universe, and we've seen it. Then if at all any other thing exists outside of our universe prolly other universe(s). Hence the multiverse postulate.
. So, It is erroneous, lugubrious, sadomasochistic, exasperating and the peak of academic embarrassment to assume that any other entity exists outside of our universe as anything other than other universes.

TenQ:

Proposition:
IF our Universe was created by an ENTITY, (a number of deductions are possible)
Deduction from Proposition and known Facts:

Please state the deductions from the propositions that you called FACTS. Otherwise, it would be a colossal waste of my time talking to you.

TenQ:

a. Such an Entity must be beyond TIME (for time did NOT exist yet) and exist beyond our time t=0

Such entity must be beyond time doesn't mean such entity cannot penetrate and manipulate time. Such entity that is responsible for the creation of time must be able to directly penetrate and manipulate it in real time without destroying the universe.

Therefore, this isn't an excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

b. Such and Entity must not be made up of MATTER (as matter did not exist yet)

"Must" is a very strong language.
Such entity must not be matter? You are talking like you know that "such Entity" face to face. You are confining the entity to the same rules you accuse atheists of confining it to.
Lol! Double standard De Nada


If such entity isn't made up of matter? Then such entity must be able to cause direct effects on matter. Since the entity is responsible for matter after all.

This is no excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

c. Such and Entity must not occupy SPACE (as SPACE did not exist yet) [/i]

Such entity must be able to penetrate into spacetime and alter it without destroying the fabric of spacetime. If you wrote a software, won't you know how to reprogram some functions without damaging the software?

This is no excuse for being undetectible.

TenQ:

Conclusion:
This mean that there is NO Experimental Technique or INSTRUMENT that can be used to Detect or View this Entity UNLESS the Entity make Himself known

There are things we don't have an idea of what they are but we can see their effects, connections and relationships with other things.

Even if this Entity decided to remain unknown. The fact that it remains uninteractive shows that it doesn't exist. It has no effect on anything.

It is a natural reasoning to know that it is absent.

Lemme ask you a question. How do you, I repeat. How do you know that there is such an ENTITY? Since you've never or no one has been able to detect it. Did you just assume there must be or that entity showed itself to you?

I need your response on this please.

How did your religion fathers get in contact with this so called God if he existed outside of our universe, since even science has not been able to contact anything outside of our own universe?

TenQ:

These above break down your premise leading to excuse that: Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence

Brother you are making me laugh.
The fundamental laws are universal laws. They are the laws of this universe.

Everything you wrote up there are things that are supposedly "happening" outside of this universe(outside of the A.Alpha and it's big bang and it's laws). You said before time, outside of matter and before space(These three are outside of our universe).

So my brother, you have not been able to break down any premise. I repeat again that the physical laws remain true for all observers at all frames of reference(When you truly understand this phrase, you will stop believing in the old wives' fables called deities and you will never debate me using physics anymore)

TenQ:

Of course, these are the reasons you cannot bring God into the laboratory. The Creator of the Universe exist in a realm and dimension different from ours

I didn't necessarily mean dragging God into a laboratory. I meant any scientific instrument that has been tested and verified to be absolutely efficient.

TenQ:

If this is your major claim, I am sorry, It doesn't hold water!

Eyyah! But I just subdued your counterattacks.

BTW, of which religion are you?

TenQ:

I asked you to read:
https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm

Later when I'm less preoccupied.

TenQ:

Your Question (Bolded):
God is the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything in the Physical Universe!

Were you there during the big bang? Did you see any first cause causing A.Alpha?
Couldn't another universe be a first cause and prolly our own universe is just a subset of the first cause universe?
Why must it have to be a God?

If a God could be the first cause, why couldnt A.Alpha be it's own first cause as well? At least none of us was there during the big bang.

FRANCISTOWN:

Lol! I was expecting this. As usual, the same arguments theists use to support their outlandish claim. 😂😂

Now lemme tell you where many theists lack critical reasoning.

In the grand calculus of the universe. If the level of entropy of the universe started decreasing and time started to move backwards. The space begins to shrink and everything goes back into the single entity before the big bang.
Let's call that single entity A. Alpha.

Now here is where I want to provoke your frontal lobe.

1. We can't establish the fact whether there was any other entity aside A. Alpha.

2. Even if there were other entities. Such entities can never have an established connection or relationship with A.Alpha and it's elements. How do I know this? The single entity A.Alpha exploded into nothingness and it has constantly be expanding.
The expansion of space time could only be possible if it's expands into nothing or it repels it's surrounding entities.

Therefore, anything that would have a relationship and connection with A.Alpha must had been within A.Alpha before the explosion since our universe is independently parallel. As there has not been any statistically significant evidence of any other universe.

Scientists only assume that, since we ourselves are in a universe, and we've seen it. Then if at all any other thing exists outside of our universe prolly other universe(s). Hence the multiverse postulate.
. So, It is erroneous, lugubrious, sadomasochistic, exasperating and the peak of academic embarrassment to assume that any other entity exists outside of our universe as anything other than other universes.




Please state the deductions from the propositions that you called FACTS. Otherwise, it would be a colossal waste of my time talking to you.


Such entity must be beyond time doesn't mean such entity cannot penetrate and manipulate time. Such entity that is responsible for the creation of time must be able to directly penetrate and manipulate it in real time without destroying the universe.

Therefore, this isn't an excuse for being undetectible.




"Must" is a very strong language.
Such entity must not be matter? You are talking like you know that "such Entity" face to face. You are confining the entity to the same rules you accuse atheists of confining it to.
Lol! Double standard De Nada


If such entity isn't made up of matter? Then such entity must be able to cause direct effects on matter. Since the entity is responsible for matter after all.

This is no excuse for being undetectible.


Such entity must be able to penetrate into spacetime and alter it without destroying the fabric of spacetime. If you wrote a software, won't you know how to reprogram some functions without damaging the software?

This is no excuse for being undetectible.



There are things we don't have an idea of what they are but we can see their effects, connections and relationships with other things.

Even if this Entity decided to remain unknown. The fact that it remains uninteractive shows that it doesn't exist. It has no effect on anything.

It is a natural reasoning to know that it is absent.

Lemme ask you a question. How do you, I repeat. How do you know that there is such an ENTITY? Since you've never or no one has been able to detect it. Did you just assume there must be or that entity showed itself to you?

I need your response on this please.

How did your religion fathers get in contact with this so called God if he existed outside of our universe, since even science has not been able to contact anything outside of our own universe?


Brother you are making me laugh.
The fundamental laws are universal laws. They are the laws of this universe.

Everything you wrote up there are things that are supposedly "happening" outside of this universe(outside of the A.Alpha and it's big bang and it's laws). You said before time, outside of matter and before space(These three are outside of our universe).

So my brother, you have not been able to break down any premise. I repeat again that the physical laws remain true for all observers at all frames of reference(When you truly understand this phrase, you will stop believing in the old wives' fables called deities and you will never debate me using physics anymore)


I didn't necessarily mean dragging God into a laboratory. I meant any scientific instrument that has been tested and verified to be absolutely efficient.


Eyyah! But I just subdued your counterattacks.

BTW, of which religion are you?



Later when I'm less preoccupied.



Were you there during the big bang? Did you see any first cause causing A.Alpha?
Couldn't another universe be a first cause and prolly our own universe is just a subset of the first cause universe?
Why must it have to be a God?

If a God could be the first cause, why couldnt A.Alpha be it's own first cause as well? At least none of us was there during the big bang.

I think you are too much in a hurry:

Is this premise below fundamentally true?

Known Facts:
1. The Universe began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist

TenQ:

I think you are too much in a hurry:

Is this premise below fundamentally true?

Known Facts:
1. The Universe began from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago
2. Prior to this time t=0, all the laws of Physics and Chemistry do NOT exist and not in operation
3. Prior to this time t=0, space , time and matter did not exist

Well the thing is, no one knows. I mean the bigbang is still a theory and not a law. No one was really there to tell what happened.
We are only trying to make sense of things based on observations and Friedman and other mathematical equations.

Your question is more like a causality dilemma, the egg/hen paradox.

No scientist in the world can prove whether there were physical laws before the bigbang or whether they were simultaneously created alongside the universe.

Once upon a time, there was a singularity and this singularity was very hot and it was expanding and cooling very fast until it became what it is today. Well, interesting theory from our astrophysicists.

The answer to your question is. No one knows what really happened before the bigbang.

Time is imaginary, so some scientists agree that. Time must have been in existence even before the universe. That's why you see phrase such as "1 sec after the bigbang, the universe was..."

I repeat, no one knows.
Whether there was time, space and physical laws before the bigbang. We can't tell.

But after the bigbang at t=0. We are sure of matter, laws, principles and the continuation of time at t=0 + ∞.

TenQ:

I think you are too much in a hurry:

TenQ . Don't pretend to not have seen my question.

Of which religion are you?

FRANCISTOWN:

I'm sorry. Everything you wrote were not needed at all.

Let's leave tangibility aside. Come at atheists head-on and don't loiter around the facts.

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.


1. The first prerequisite (the fundamental laws of existence sustaining true for all observers at all frames of reference)

• Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence. i.e,
i. They cannot be seen by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
ii. They cannot be heard by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
iii. They cannot be observed by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids)
iii. They do not have effects on things that everyone can observe, and they are not observable themselves (with or without laboratory aids). Therefore, they are not interactive.
iv. They are not perceptible(with or without laboratory equipments)
v. There is no physical law that supports the possibilities of the existence of deities.
vi. Deities cannot be subjected to any scientific procedure.

These above are what atheists say about deities.

The ideology of the existence of a God is even the most stupid thing ever. Like, what's a God?

All this is rather too long for me though good.

I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods because I know gods do not exist.

I was born an atheist, and after encountering those who believe in gods and then researching gods myself, I discovered all gods were created by human beings.

This made me appreciate the human intellect even more in fact, because, creating gods is an amazing feat indeed.

FRANCISTOWN:

Well the thing is, no one knows. I mean the bigbang is still a theory and not a law. No one was really there to tell what happened.
We are only trying to make sense of things based on observations and Friedman and other mathematical equations.

Your question is more like a causality dilemma, the egg/hen paradox.

No scientist in the world can prove whether there were physical laws before the bigbang or whether they were simultaneously created alongside the universe.

Once upon a time, there was a singularity and this singularity was very hot and it was expanding and cooling very fast until it became what it is today. Well, interesting theory from our astrophysicists.

The answer to your question is. No one knows what really happened before the bigbang.

Time is imaginary, so some scientists agree that. Time must have been in existence even before the universe. That's why you see phrase such as "1 sec after the bigbang, the universe was..."

I repeat, no one knows.
Whether there was time, space and physical laws before the bigbang. We can't tell.

But after the bigbang at t=0. We are sure of matter, laws, principles and the continuation of time at t=0 + ∞.

So why are we talking when we can't even stick to the basic science we learned.


I don't appreciate when a person cannot be held accountable for his claims in speech and knowledge

FRANCISTOWN:

TenQ . Don't pretend to not have seen my question.

Of which religion are you?

You should know that I am a Disciple of Christ Jesus!

TenQ:

So why are we talking when we can't even stick to the basic science we learned.


I don't appreciate when a person cannot be held accountable for his claims in speech and knowledge

What did the basic science that you learnt teach to you?
That before the bigbang there was no time?
That there were no physical laws before the bigbang?

Bring me a material, or refer me to a book that says otherwise to what I've answered you with.

I just answered you according to physics. Read all your physics materials and you will find the same thing in 'em.

Lemme ask you again.

What did the basic science that you learnt teach to you?

TenQ:

You should know that I am a Disciple of Christ Jesus!

😂😂😂😂😂. Oh! That Roman Invented Dude.
He even said "Christ Jesus". 😂😂😂
Did the Bible teach you about the bigbang, abi you no believe the creation story?

budaatum:


All this is rather too long for me though good.

I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods because I know gods do not exist.

I was born an atheist, and after encountering those who believe in gods and then researching gods myself, I discovered all gods were created by human beings.

This made me appreciate the human intellect even more in fact, because, creating gods is an amazing feat indeed.

It's fascinating, but have you thought about the implications of your phrase, when you said. "I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods"?

FRANCISTOWN:

It's fascinating, but have you thought about the implications of your phrase, when you said. "I do not believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods"?

What are the implications of my phrase that you think I have not thought of?

FRANCISTOWN:

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.

Dont get it mixed up. Your believe is your believe and it need not be True in real eyeity, for you can very well believe that Peter Obi is the preseident of Nigeria and no one can make you believe otherwise.

So, it is not about your belief but what is True and what is proven

And i have proven God to you and other atheists and you could not give any valid answer, exactly what happened in these threads in proof of the existencr of spirit.

So, you atheists are left hanging on to whatever dreams you imagine or choose to imagine but the proof and Truth of God, is undisputably clearly seen and clear for all to see

budaatum:

I was born an atheist and after encountering those who believe in gods and then researching gods myself, I discovered all gods were created by human beings.

See Madness!

Like atheism is a genetic and hereditary comdition babies are born with! Atheists and lies and madness, woman and satan.

StillDtruth:


Dont get it mixed up. Your believe is your believe and it need not be True in real eyeity, for you can very well believe that Peter Obi is the preseident of Nigeria and no one can make you believe otherwise.

So, ir is not about your belief but what is True and what is proven

And i have proven God to you and other atheists and you could not give any valid answer, exactly what happened in these threads in proof of the existencr of spirit.

So, you atheists are left hanging on to whatever dreams you imagine or choose to imagine but the proof and Truth of God, is undisputably clearly seen and clear for all to see

This comedian is here again.

Believe does not affect reality.
If them born anybody papa well, make him go hang Peter Obi portrait for him office make he write The GCFR of Nigeria under am. Body go tell am.

You have not proven God to me o. Show me how you've proven God to me.

What is happening on this thread is basically a waste of human time. We have neither learnt anything new nor reached a reasonable submission.

As of today, May 1st, 2024. No one in the world, with statistically significant evidence has been able to scientifically proven the existence of spirits, so what are you on about?

StillDtruth:


See Madness!

Like atheism is a genetic and hereditary comdition babies are born with! Atheists and lies and madness, woman and satan.

You were born an atheist too(No child was born believing in God). Your environment taught the ideology of the God you worship to you.
A child raised in a society filled with free thinkers would never ever worship or believe in fairy things like God.

This is even common sense, but I guess people with a single digit IQ will never understand.

budaatum:


What are the implications of my phrase that you think I have not thought of?

Absolutely, nothing.