Nbkay23:
It’s no longer news how Dollar is skyrocketing in our Economy Nigeria Today, and the Devaluation of our Naira, well I’ll like to share my own 2percent on the situation.

Considering the fact that Nigeria only spends naira, But the availability of dollars to some, in the economy is Devastating. These are the Big business corps, BDC’s operators and Particularly the Government. The reason for our currency devaluation, here I’ll tell you now..I’m an economist and a part time forex trader, so believe it what I’m telling is true.

The Cbn exchange dollar thru the Bureau d change to the public, the way they do it, is By releasing Dollars to particular registered BDC traders as they claim, Dollars is released to this Individuals to sell to the General public daily, What these people do is, they sell at a particular rate and increase the rate so as to Have some dollars left in stock, By hoarding them, They come back to the bank next day and deposit naira, Saying Demand of Dollars is High, Next day collecting of dollars take place in the Bank again, the bank doesn’t have a choice than to increase the rate cos the rate of return is Low in Value, Definitely business has been done and profit has been made. The issue is Why can’t the CBN put a stop to Street Trading, Aboki’s calling people dollar, dollar on the streets and Devise a Means of Transaction using the Bank for Transparency while Dealing thru the Accounts of the BDC’s, this way you can avoid Laundering of money, illegal transactions and Consumption of Government funds, Most Politicians in Abuja prefer to use the Bureau d change cos it’s a seamless way of Transaction, No one can hold you, No amount is too much, Infact the bigger the amount the Better they friends with you. Street transaction of Dollars is still the same as Spending dollars in the economy. You won’t see other Countries allowing other currencies to be Transferable in the Streets, We have to put a stop to this Menace if we want to save this Country from Collapsing , Using Debts to hold the naira is not the way, Defunding the Banks of Dollar deposits is not the way, Defunding the crypto holders is not even the way, We have to let Transparency and Records take control of the Exchange system, Not in the streets, But banks. Slots can be made Available for Preferable BDC’s Vendors, And Stop Doing Business with the Economy

Below in this picture is a woman walking Pass the exchange Board in Tokyo Japan, You can Visibly see the chart

Expanse2020:


In Proverbs

Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love.
19 For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey; holala..😂😂😂
20 he took a bag of money with him;
at full moon he will come home.”

Expanse2020:
It can't never be adultery Sha..
Since bible said if my friend TenQ no de around his wife can call me to fill in the gap....

kkins25:
Without a doubt, TenQ, you have wrapped yourself in your own arguments that your mind is now entangled and struggling to escape the nuisances that you, yourself, ascribed to words like "tangible" and "intangible."

Simple tell us which Category God falls under, and we can close the windows on this!!!!!

I'll give you props for making your writeup easy to read though. The boldening, underline, and spaces made it easy to follow your line of arguments. My " ADHD,"I mean short attention span, didn't was actually glued in..

gaskiyamagana:

Ok.
Thanks.

gaskiyamagana:

You are free to upload anything about Islam from your fake, fictitious, fabricated and doctored contents and references - all can never be genuine as long they are not from Quran; as incest, onanism , rape and adultery as clearly, obviously and unambiguously recorded in your holy Bible about prophets of God.

gaskiyamagana:

I will continue to bleat it till second coming of your Jesus that you have polluted his teachings with fallacy, fiction, FALSEHOOD, FABRICATION MISINTERPRETATION AND MISREPRESENTATION .

FRANCISTOWN:

😂😂😂😂😂. 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?

gaskiyamagana:

But too good to be reading incest, onanism, porn and adultery about prophets of God in your holy Bible.

gaskiyamagana:

Repetition of justification that Christianity and it followers are romancing with fallacious, fictitious, fabricated, misrepresented and misinterpreted belief, doctrine and teachings about God and His prophets especially prophet Isa (asw).

gaskiyamagana:

Fantasy in the ignorant world of disbelief.

gaskiyamagana:

It seems you have swallowed your ignorant that "Allah established religions"; despite claiming understanding Qur'an more we muslims. This is the reason you are trying to jump to another issue. Your ignorance in that statement always reflected in most of your arguments with fake, fictitious and feeble Hadith and Christianized interpretation of Qur'an to suit your wish as enemy of Islam.
I don't have time to argue with permanently PROGRAMED person as anti Islam because it will be exercise in futility.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

Of which religion are you?

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 + ∞.

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.

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.

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?

gaskiyamagana:

According to your poor understanding misinterpretation and disbelief of the story.

gaskiyamagana:

As usual, and as ROBOTICALLY PROGRAMED to be jumping from one unfinished matter to another to divert from main issue he is incapable of.
From Allah established religions, now to Allah "Father" of muslims as God father of Christians.

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.

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.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

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.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

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.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

JessicaRabbit:

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

JessicaRabbit:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

JessicaRabbit:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

gaskiyamagana:

Give me more PICTURES of Biblical Big BROTHER NIGERIA version of songs of Solomon.

gaskiyamagana:

From the Quran you often claimed mastery of its language, contents and quoting numerously , Islam is religion for mankind, those that accepted it are Muslims . All prophets are muslims. It was their deviated followers, courtesy of Satan that followed ways of shaytan and called themselves, followed and practiced what the prophets they followed were unaware of.
Objective study of Quran supported the above, subjective manipulation, twist and misinterpretation of it disagreed, and even belied the above.

kkins25:


So God falls into category of belief, right?

kkins25:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

This is what we mean by elongated part of transcription.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

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

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

FRANCISTOWN:

You are wrong!
Consciousness has no causalities.

FRANCISTOWN:

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

FRANCISTOWN:

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

kkins25:


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

gaskiyamagana:

What is validity of your question about ''Allah established religions"?
That Allah established religions and you requested for their list and references is invented, false and invalid assumption or question as you have asked, from Islamic point of view.