₦airaland Forum

JackBizzle:
Name 3 things in existence that you have perceived "non-physically"

Did you read my comment or not?

I mentioned quarks. Have you perceived them physically?

Have you perceived the earth's core?

Can you perceive dark matter?

Can you perceive ultraviolet light?

Can you perceive gravity? It can be measured but not observed.

Can you perceive The Mind?
We can observe the brain and its chemical reactions, but thoughts are completely intangible to us.

Can you perceive quantum particles?

You asked for 3 but I have offered you more than that just to show how narrow minded you are.

JackBizzle:
I hereby grant you the award for dumbest post ever.

Your analogy fails so beautifully. Have you ever seen the process of writing a book?

The process of writing is far more complex than the final book itself.

The writer must anticipate how the reader will interpret his writing. The writer has to keep editing his original draft to weed out unnecessary verbiage. Thevwritee must himself understand what he is writing about- the writer must do research in the topic.

The simple final book you see came from a complex series of editing.



For God to see the universe as simple, his intelligence and experience would be so complex on a multiversal level that a single universe is small to him.


Checkmate

I am struggling here to see how you can even initiate an argument with anyone with the one tracked method of reasoning you employ.

The process of writing a book is so simplistic because it is borne from the mental picture of the writer. He alone conceived and brought it forth.

Editing it is part of the process but does not make it complex. Editing is simply an expansion of an already simple thing. Editing is just so it could be understood or further thicken the plot which is still a mental picture.

I already told you that what you perceive as complex is simply because of the level you are.

A creator can be simple but in a higher level which is His realm but to you is complex based on your perception. Any complex thing to you that is derived from this creator is seen as simple by him but not to you.

You are limited by your field of vision so can only declare in the now and within the limits of your earthly confinement.

To the creator the planets could look as simple as the balls arranged on a billiard table or your complexity of space could be as simple as trapped smoke in a bottle. The burning out of stars which may seem complex to you could be as simple as blowing out a candle to a creator.

You need to open your mind and stop messing around the way you do. You can never learn.

JackBizzle:
So, your God is not complex? How does one create complex things without a complex understanding and experience of physical things.

Lol.....

You are just going round in circles. Perceptions vary. What you term as complex to one can be simple to another.

From our perspective we see the universe as complex but to a creator who could make such complexity which we see it is seen as simple.

So saying that the creator must be a complex being is silly really.

The person who conceived the content of a book in his mind and put it in writing breaks the plot down from the beginning all the way to the end so they wrote a simple book. However the reader is intrigued by the content of the book because they were not privy to the original mental picture of the writer.

realtem:
.......Hence, by stating the realm in which something is existing/non-existing, we have discovered some of the props of that thing.

I hope i am making sense.

Stating the realm still does not give us access to all its properties. The best we can do is speculate. We can however to a great degree be a lot more accurate in our realm but anything outside this (spiritual realm) becomes hazy.

realtem:
i understood your comment 100% and i am not asking for physical proof of things existing in other realms.
But it is you who did not understand mine.





All i'm saying is things in different realms have different properties, right?
Now, God does not reside in the physical realm, right?
By acknowledging this, we have established that some properties of things in the physical realm does not apply to God. Hence, by stating the realm in which sth exist/does not exist........

Yes!

It's like a man who builds a machine. He can put some of his nature in the machine in order for the machine to be able to make some sense of things but he isn't an actual physical part of the machine. He stands apart from the machine while making it.

The machine cannot perceive it's creator beyond what it has been programmed to.

You catch on quick.

JackBizzle:


Checkmate! Your true colour has come out. Alt username oshi.

Logic has failed you. Who is more complex, the man or the machine he created?

True colour? whatever that means.

We are not talking about a machine or a man are we?

We are talking about God and all of creation both seen (known) and unseen (unknown).

Evolutionists believe that the universe came about from a singularity and the universe expanded from that. If I am to go with what they say, can you also lay claim that this singularity was more complex than what came from it?

If you say that this singularity was more complex then that defeats evolution especially since they believe humanity evolved from a single cell.

Now If I declare God as the creator which He is then how can you describe Him when you cannot perceive him physically?

I do not know how you arrived at Checkmate.

JackBizzle:
Thanks for showing how to miss a point.

Please follow the logic.

The argument from complexity states that the universe is so complex that it couldn't come by chance- something created it.


The rebuttal to the argument is that the creator that created the complex universe will be more complex than the universe and therefore something created that creator.

wrong Jack! You really need to start thinking before you type.

Can you show me any form of proof that shows that the creator of the universe is more complex than the universe?

How on earth do you not know what the word ETERNAL means? How can an ETERNAL being be created? Your physical mind is playing tricks on you Jack.

realtem:
what(in my post) is within the framework of physical realism?



And what are you driving at?(no offence please)


You still remember my argument, right?



I agree with the boldened.

This was your comment which I replied to :

By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That comment of yours showed me that you did not understand my comment based on ontology.

What I am driving at is that physical proof is not always required in order to show existence because not all existence is "physically" perceived!

realtem:
By stating the realm/framework/world in which something exists, i think we have given a property/feature/nature of that thing or an hint of what the nature of what the thing might be.

That is within the common framework of physical realism.

Not everything is physically perceived. This would then give credence to a soul / spirit or what a lot of people sometimes term as the sixth sense.

Let me make it simpler. Things existed outside our perception even before they were "physically" discovered and things also exist outside our physical perception even without being able to physically discover them.

It's like the question, when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Is the sound proof that the tree fell or there is sound regardless of the lack of human presence?

The sound is the human perception but even without that did the tree fall or not?

realtem:
No.

Good answer! I wish JackBizzle would be this honest rather than further confusing himself with his inner ramblings.

Cheers!

realtem:
It's because we have a fore knowledge and are familiar with the nature of fishes,flies and humans... Thats probably why you won't need a description.

I think one has to touch the nature of something to prove to yourself/anybody else that that thing exists.

Not necessarily! Let's delve into ontology for a moment shall we?

If the word exists were restricted to refer only to what can be perceived, it would lose its normal meaning almost entirely. We could no longer say that laws exist, that numbers exist, that moral principles exist, or that corporations exist. We could not even say that gravity exists, or quarks exist (yes quarks not quakes) or that the core of the Earth exists. Strictly speaking, we could only say that our perceptions themselves exist, so we could not even say that the screen right in front of us now exists, because that is a physical object supposed to be the cause of our direct perceptions, and is not the direct perception itself. So, unless we are going to completely redefine the usual meaning of the word exists, we have to say that what exists is not limited only to what can be perceived. On the contrary, what exists is (with the exception of perception itself) always something quite apart from perception.

The question then becomes, in what sense do things outside of perception exist. Ultimately, all things outside of or beyond direct perception meaningfully exist only within a certain context.

Within the common framework of physical realism, the physical world as described by our current well-confirmed physical theories exists. Within the framework of Euclidean geometry, perfect circles and right triangles exist (but they do not exist in the physical world). Within the context of non-Euclidean geometry, triangles with three right angles exist, but not within the context of Euclidean geometry. What exists and what does not exist thus depends on the context that is (often implicitly) presupposed, i.e., things exist only relative to some framework or context. Independent of any such context, one can not meaningfully say what does and does not exist.

Can you then say God does not exist because you cannot perceive him with your human senses?

JackBizzle:
What is this one saying?

What exists? My name or my body?

How then do you say that my body exists without describing it? How do you differentiate my body from others

You are repeating your error again Jack!

One does not need to "describe" your body to know you exist. Your existence can be in a comatose state yet you exist. You could be a vegetable or a tree. Yet you exist.

EXISTENCE IS SIMPLY A STATE OF BEING.

Nature then talks about your workings or characteristics.

Does a fly exist? You would answer yes without offering a description.

Does a fish exist? You would say yes without offering a description.

Same with trees and every other thing both animate and inanimate.

JackBizzle:
Really?

Jackbizzle exists? Could you prove that I am not a computer programme that Seun developed to debate Christians on nairaland?



Stop being obtuse.

To prove that I , Jackbizzle, exist, you must argue that I am a being that types and reasons like a human being.

And by that alone, you have touched on the nature of a human being for dogs and other animals do not reason.



Checkmate bro.

Oh Jack! You said this?

Is existence applicable to only humans? Existence and nature can be muddled up and you are doing just that.

Existence is different from one's nature. To exist is a state of simply being and has nothing to do with the nature of that which exists.

You also said dogs and other animals DO NOT REASON! Really?

The aspects of dog cognition include empathy, memory, reasoning, cunning and communication. Plus a dog has the ability of learning up to 1000 words and can differentiate which means what. So dogs are at the reasoning level of a young child.

So based on this ones "nature" can be manipulative and deceptive. I could even assume that you could be a dog typing and not a human based on your earlier submission (link this to a dog and it's reasoning ability of a young child).

Nature is at variance with existence. All "nature" differs and you cannot begin to mentally quantify the nature of a God "creator" who made everything seen and yet unseen. You would be misled if you even tried.

bennyann:
I know it was meant to inspire but it made us, your family in Christ so happy. It's a joyous testimony.

And about being laid-back, I don't think I'm always like that it's just that happenings here are already predicted in the Bible so it calms my reactions.

Funny but true.

Being "calm" has not really been my strong side but even when I "loose my cool" I try to be nice with it. I don't know if that's how it's perceived but that's how I see it.

God bless you darling.

KingEbukasBlog:
Front page (FP)

Then why not use TC (Topic Creator)

hopefulLandlord:
Original Post(er)

But are we not all Original Posters? Shouldn't the OP which refers to the first post be better as FP (First Post(er)?

hopefulLandlord:
my post is more directed at OP

I have been noticing OP being used a lot here. What does that mean?

hopefulLandlord:
and that statement has NOTHING backing it up!

what does he mean by " Enlightenment"?

who are those people/entities using atheism to control us?

what have they been benefiting from us being atheists?

okay, he's "enlightened" now cuz he's dumped atheism and atheists - according to him- are now "unenlightened"?

how's he sure what he calls "enlightenment" isn't an even bigger tool to control?

that tinfoil hat looks good on him, I wonder where he bought it

I am not in the mood for frivolous talk today sir. Just stated an observation and that's it.

lepasharon:
Interesting. So which non ' petty' convo have you ever had?
We are afraid of ppl who come in the name of god, then eventually scam ppl



So you've snooped around and seen my comments?

You're the first in the world aren't ya?

Do you want a medal?

Done and dusted with you. You can go back to your prattle. I don't think I can stand in the way of that with you even if I tried.

Enjoy your day.

jonbellion:
damn
Such intellectualism
I'm mesmerized

I have said my piece as always and I now release her to a life of further roaming. Moving on!

jonbellion:
wow baby take it easy slow down no need to be harsh

Like I always do and stand by, I air my views and stick to them regardless of whose skin I get under and if she feels she can hop around this website whispering her little nonsense about me would make her more appreciated and seem sensible then I do not wish to be such a female.

My persona of being a strong woman, independent and bold was built through grit. Wouldn't say same about hers which seems to thrive on gossip which has been the decimation of the true strength of our femininity over the years.

We have engaged in more chit chat and idle talk (gossip) for generations and forgot that we are first human before female and we also can be a force to be reckoned with on this planet and not some side piece which a lot of us ladies have been relegated to. She has obviously contributed to the generations of female subjugation and nothing more.

bennyann:
I don't know much about atheists and their behaviors but the ones I know here have been nice to me but there's one thread I witnessed where some of them didn't congratulate Spacetacular but turned it to something else.
https://www.nairaland.com/3894180/all-things-work-together-good#58024751

Let me see if I can look for trouble by mentioning those that didn't congratulate.

Divinerace
Lepasharon didn't even try to congratulate at all. this lady ehn
Jonbellion's own was worse
Ftechclass
Almighty hahn was just waiting for evidence before he will say congratulations
Hopefullandlord, I couldn't tell where he stood but I don't remember him congratulating space.
Dalaman didn't say congrats
JackBizzle didn't even congratulate at all

Adepeter26 claimed not to read but said congratulations anyway. I think he hesitated a bit

---

That thread was turned upside down that I regretted being there. The thread turned dirty and it hurts till now.

So atheists, is it true you wouldn't rejoice with us when theists give testimonies? Do you really seek our downfall?

Hi Anne, just seeing this comment of yours. Congratulations were not my interest when I made that submission. Rather inspiring someone was.

So I am not really bothered over who did or did not offer a congratulatory message but I appreciated yours though

Thank you for caring and I noticed how laid back you are. Are you always this laid back?

lepasharon:
Congratulations for what? I'm not even sure the person behind that moniker is even female.

Remember damogul? I'm sure you would turn a blind eye to that

So here you are "fearfully" trying to convince your mind that I am probably a hermaphrodite or a male specimen. So I am not female because unlike you I do not engage in petty conversations which are devoid of knowledge like you do here on this website (yes I have snooped around and seen much of your past comments).

So speaking up for what I believe now translates to "establishing myself"?

Being afraid of me wouldn't help you and neither would it stop me from always speaking up for what I believe and know.

Enjoy your day.

obinna58:
u said atheism is a tool to control and limit Yet u haven't given any prove which says so
U just talking blablabla

This is an extract from his comment

"Atheists claim that religion is a tool to brainwash and control. I hate to break it to them, but atheism is an even stronger tool to brainwash and control. You will understand this statement when you become enlightened."

Yet you asked such a question after reading that and the text in bold. You just proved that bolder text and being unenlightened.

Just pointing out an observation and not trying to be demeaning sir.

Your lifestyle and what happened to you is explained in 1 Peter 3:13

" And who is he that will harm you, if ye be eager to do that which is good?"

TLuzzie:
You're getting boring. When I use more terrible words now, you'll go crying, get my post deleted, and get me banned. But I no longer have an escape route, that's why you're feeling so full of yourself, you fucking_ bastard. You'll be reduced to one screaming "vitriol".

If I am getting boring it's because you are not entertaining enough. If I wanted to get you banned I would have reported you all this while Afterall the report button is right in front of me but NO! You are my fun distraction and favourite pastime.

I am laughing all over the place here.

TLuzzie:
This idiot_ doesn't know how dumb she sounds. Are you implying that I've never heard of cringeworthy before you used it? You must have ORIGINATED the word then. Sh!t. Your stupidity is staggering.

Come on. You and I know you were staggering like you ran into a fist before I ventured on this website so don't blame me for being too dumb to see the fist you ran into.

people like you fall and hit the floor and then turn around to blame the floor saying it came up and hit you.

TLuzzie:
Dumb tactic. This isn't a nice way to tap out. Do it directly.

Tap out? From my favourite pastime? I don't think so. Get used to me.

TLuzzie:
It must be coincidental that you used some words I used in my previous post in this nonsense you just posted. You're a fvcktard!

He admits it again!

TLuzzie:
I already said that is the ONLY thing you can EVER see. The bilious blood that flows in you guarantees that outcome.

Are you speaking to yourself now? Narcissus gazed into the mirror and saw his own beauty. You did the same but saw stupidity, but do not seem to be proud of it. Is that why you decided to LIE?

Rambling of a 4-year old

Another vomit. Digest as many as possible. Spit out the rest. Your mother was cruel. She shouldn't have fed you so many.

Same words each and every time. Same delivery too. Do you have eny fresh material at all?

TLuzzie:
YOUR cringeworthy? You own the English Language? Who knew?!

Ah he admits it. It must have been coincidental that I used the word on a thread you were on and then about 30mins later you used it to address someone in your usual blather Laden scribble.

TLuzzie:
You lived on them as a little frail thing. Your mother fed you quite many. That's why you can't help but mention them now.

Trying to comfort yourself that I haven't achieved things your poor soul couldn't achieve at 20. You can have fun eating your bread of delusion with your butter of stupidity. It won't make up for your failures, neither will it propel you to hights that will FOREVER be beyond your reach.

You mentioned it again. Were they so numerous you're yet to digest them all? Your poor mother was so desperate for you to stay alive she had to pump you full of sh!t. When will the vomitting end?

Yadayadayada all day as drivel.

Did you notice my responses have been devoid of bile compared to yours? Now that is how to talk smart.

Can't say same for you.

You are becoming disjointed. Get yourself together soldier! You are beginning to whimper like a kid whose Popsicle got snatched by a bully.

Roach up (sorry man up)!