₦airaland Forum

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.

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

What do you think Jibril was doing with his mouth on the vulva (fahjah) of Mary?
Did he not blow into Mary?

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.

Can any true Muslim call God Father?

Moses said: God said that He is the Father to the Nation of Israel
Exodus 4:22
God refers to Israel as His firstborn son: "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son.'

The Prophet Isaiah said: God is their Father
Isa 64:8:
"But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we all are the work of your hand."

The prophet JEREMIAH said: God is their Father
Jer 31:9:
"They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."

The a prophet Malachi said: God calls Himself a father to the Priests of Israel
Mal 1:6:
"A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is my honor ? and if I be a master, where is my fear? said the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, that despise my name. And you say, Wherein have we despised your name?"


Jesus called God his Father:
John 8:54:
"Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honors me; of whom you say, that he is your God:"

Jesus taught us His followers to pray call God our Father
Luk 11:2:
"And he said to them, When you pray, say, Our Father which are in heaven, Hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so in earth."




So, you can see that both Judaism and Christianity and the prophets of old call God Father.







1. Is Allah your Father(Quran 5:18 ) or the Father of Mohammed or you Muslims?

The One you serve sees you as no better than slaves

2. The Question was, What is the names of the Religions Brought by the over 124,000 prophets of Islam?

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!

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

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

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

Does mathematics exist or not?

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

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

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

This is what we mean by elongated part of transcription.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRANCISTOWN:
You are wrong!
Consciousness has no causalities.

You are wrong as I NEVER implied that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is about certainty sir.

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

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


It is not Rocket Science sir

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.

Allah gave the Name Islam and Muslim to your religion and his worshippers.


What name Did God give the Religion of the Jews and the religion of Christ followers or any other religion (other than Islam)?


A simple question sir. To help you, at least you Muslims say that Allah sent up to 240,000 prophets : the names of their religions shouldn't be difficult for you to find

gaskiyamagana:
Pseudo or fake 'Christian' lslamic scholar ; there is nothing like 'Religions that Allah established '. This is someone who said he needs intellectual discussion about Islam and saying 'Religions that Allah established' . This is part of fake knowledge and input PROGRAMED in his roboticalized reasoning with which he always claimed and want someone like me to argue with him over Islamic matter he is avowed enemy of.
Good luck to you and those who will argue with you.

Sounding like a broken record.

Of course you have no valid answer!

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

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

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

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

Good for you.

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

This is how to chat meaningfully!

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


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


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

For Clarity, do you admit and stand the definition:

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

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

FRANCISTOWN:
Why would it not be favourable to me?

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

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

You are all noise and no bite

StillDtruth:
That is atheists for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Position 1: Tangibility as Producing Effects

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

Position 2: Tangibility based on Measurement

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

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

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

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

Without a concrete commitment to definitions, we go nowhere!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we agree perfectly: and especially your last sentence!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Every System has a Purpose or Function!

JessicaRabbit:
If this is what your idea of atheism is, then I'm afraid you've been terribly misinformed to the point where I have to wonder what you stand to gain by challenging something you clearly do not understand. You're obviously confusing yourself on the fundamental principles here. Atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of belief in deities. It's not an exclusive club for any subset of humans in the wider society. Nowhere does it imply a lack of comprehension or rationality. And it's quite funny how you whip up random categories at me, while not noticing for yourself that those categories are charmingly limited. So you just happened to leave out, oh, I don't know, the vast majority of atheists?... People who've examined the evidence for deities and found it wanting, perhaps? Those who simply don't find the concept compelling? I wonder if that was an honest omission or one of mere convenience?

Moving on, I can promise that this isn't be the first time I'm hearing the "babies and animals" analogy when discussing atheism as a subject. It's an old and tired trope which lazily implies that belief in deities is the natural state, and this is demonstrably untrue. Children raised without any religion often don't exhibit inherent belief. And attributing complex theological concepts to a hamster is frankly giving them more credit than their maze-running skills deserve. Atheism doesn't require grand pronouncements or blind faith. It's just a person saying, "Hey, I haven't seen any convincing evidence for this whole god thing." So, the next time you encounter an atheist, maybe you can ditch the condescending tripe about babies and braindeadness.

As for your assertion that "lacking a belief in a subject means you do not have ANY position for or against the subject": that's a bit like saying, "If you don't have a favorite ice cream flavor, you must therefore hate all ice cream." It's a false dichotomy! One can simply lack a preference without any active disdain. It's true that beliefs often occupy the space where knowledge fears to tread. However, if you assert that beliefs only arise from a lack of information, then you are wilfully ignoring the rich tapestry of psychological, cultural, and emotional factors that also play pivotal roles in belief formation.

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.

JessicaRabbit:
Let's take a close look at the examples you provided:

(1)
This is a predictive belief, likely based on current military capabilities and historical precedents, but as any student of history knows, you can't entirely count out the underdogs.

(2)
Inevitability is a bold term to use. It's the rhetorical equivalent of betting all your chips on red because it's come up twice in a row.

(3)
Economic forecasts are as stable as a house of cards in a wind tunnel. They're educated guesses dressed up in business attire.

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.

JessicaRabbit:
A rational person indeed weighs the probability before adopting a belief, but let's not forget that humans are notoriously irrational creatures. We're the same species that invented both the scientific method and the concept of knocking on wood for good luck. As for the reason for my engagement with religion forums, it's not just about discarding a belief; it's about seeking evidence. In the absence of empirical data, the atheist might say, "I'll pass on the God hypothesis, thanks." It's not necessarily a belief in non-existence, but rather a skepticism of claims that lack substantiation.

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

FRANCISTOWN:
How do you expect us to be comfortable with definitions and theories that are not consistent with any field of knowledge or dictionary?

This is plain common sense.

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


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

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

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

Can you be helped!?
The answer is obvious

FRANCISTOWN:
OP was already wrong to begin with.
I guess he needs to learn how to effectively query ChatGPT, understand scientific terminologies and get familiar with lexicons before he can engage atheists on a worthy discussion.

Because one can't just manufacture a definition from the thin atmosphere and expect everyone with common sense to dance around it. Never!

Cowardice is what I see in you all.
You do not want to be taken by your own definition: all you can do is to bleat endlessly "Four Legs Good: Two Legs Bad!"

Tangible is now a difficult word to define! SMH!!

FayaBall:
See atheists complaining eh!

They do not want to hold any position for which they can be held accountable

FRANCISTOWN:
As in. It's not worth engaging at all.
This kind of thread depletes intellectual capability.

When two noise makers console each other!

FRANCISTOWN:
So you want us to engage you based on what you want "tangible" to be or lemme rephrase and say, based on what you altered "tangible" to be?
You downplayed the word's meaning itself , which the whole world recognize and you gave it a meaning to satisfy your intentions.

Mtcheeeew! Brosky, whatever you think or want tangible to be is basically your own cup of tea to deal with and is none of our business.

When you have something that is more familiar with common reasoning, then you can debate us on facts and not what you want.

I apologize to myself for wasting my precious time on this irrelevant discussion.

CC:
Budaatum , triplechoice , KnownUnknown , Jaephoenix , TheBillyonaire , LordReed , triplechoice , jaephoenix:

Aemmyjah :
Emusan :
StillDtruth :

What is wrong with you people?

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

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

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

budaatum:
You can wish all you want but the fact remains that you can't impose your wish on anyone since we all have brains inside our heads.

It has nothing to do with my will for I defined properly my use of the word Tangible: as Realities that have mass, dimension or Energy ( almost a million times).

budaatum:
In fact, this lesson is taught very early in the Bible where God failed to impose his wishes on Adam and Eve, so it is rather arrogantly amusing of you to be trying it here, and I can only hope you learn from the failure.

The Potter has the Right to make the clay ANY SHAPE He wants: don't you think so?
AND the consequence is Pain, Death and loss of control of the Earth

budaatum:
You saw that being new to the conversation?

Nice catch!

https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/1#129479374

Thank God you can read my response to her! You just need some sympathy, that's all!
LOL!

budaatum:
It is indeed all about context, and the context of this thread is Atheist Says Spirit Is Nothing Because It Is Non Physical & Invisible, and it was very clearly set in the beginning and before you arrived in the thread TenQ, so your request to change the context to suit yourself is emphatically tangibly denied!

And my quest was to show you that there are Existences that are Not Tangible but Real.

Then came the army of those who chose their definition of tangibility to mean having effects on materials even though they know is not the normal use of the word.

All I require from them is just consistency in the application of their definition. QED!

budaatum:
My Lord and I do not have to agree on what is tangible, nor do Aemmyjah and I need to agree on what is tangible considering you and I have not discussed it in particular, and neither must TenQ and I agree despite discussing it at length. What is important is that my Lord and TenQ (and not you though unless you bother to read the conversation), understand what tangible means to me and that I understand what tangible means to my Lord and to TenQ in the context of a conversation about spirits.

We are all presenting tangible evidence of the intangible thoughts in our heads for everyone to see so that by our fruits (tangible words and behaviours), we shall be known.

It is all about context.
My context was very clear from the beginning
Software WITHIN the Hardware of a computer.

And I have decided to go with everyone's definition but with a clause: You have to be consistent in applying it.

Again:
Summary:

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

2. If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.

Do we agree to these two basic rules. We have an understanding asd a rule of Engagement

JessicaRabbit:
Personally, I'd like to think of this thread as a shoddy "appeal to intangibility gambit". Allow me to touch on a couple of things in your appeal.

Arent you too quick to judge?

JessicaRabbit:
While your definitions may seem objective, they're loaded to the brim with assumptions. Equating "real" with "exists" is highly disingenuous. Ideas like mathematics exist in the sense that they're consistent systems, even if they don't have physical form.

Do you know ANYTHING that is REAL but does NOT Exist?

JessicaRabbit:
That's a very curious mix of examples of intangible realities you've got there. Life? Sure, that's a biological process, emergent from tangible systems. Software code? Absolutely real in the sense it produces effects, but it's still a human creation, not some fundamental essence.

For sake of time, and the fact that I'm busy tending to more pressing matters, I'll ignore the rest of your points that I consider irrelevant at the moment and just go straight to the questions... if you don't mind.

My question was about the software WITHIN the hardware of an AI machine. Of course my thesis says they are REAL cause they exist. My question was are they Tangible existence or Intangible existence?
Of course, because of the needless arguments, I have incorporated the different definitions of tangibile only that I require everyone to take a position and be consistent in its application to follow through with its logical conclusion in applications.

JessicaRabbit:
Please note that I'm speaking solely for myself when I answer your questions. Contrary to public opinion, atheists don't share any consensus on any matters at all. The only thing that connects atheists together is a LACK of belief in God or Gods.

I understand: and this is why it is difficult making meaningful conversations with you.

The preferred Atheists claim of LACK of BELIEF is terribly WRONG and is not consistent with good reasoning. I an explain if you want.

JessicaRabbit:
Absolutely. Math, logic, even emotions are real, even if not physical.
True!

[quote author=JessicaRabbit post=129632967]That will be mostly dependent on the circumstances. If it's something with demonstrable effects, sure, demanding a physical form is unreasonable. But if it's, say, a magic invisible dragon that grants wishes, then yeah, some evidence beyond faith would be nice.
Sometimes effects are proof of existence. Sometimes, they're not. A footprint proves a creature walked there, but it doesn't tell you if it had feathers or scales. So, it depends on the quality of the effect.

You can Reason your Way to God or Choose to Stay Blind
1. An Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is Logically Impossible
2. Our Physical Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago. Time , Space and matter appeared simultaneously with this beginning
3. Whatever Caused the Universe to change from its state of Singularity to this universe must be outside our universe
4. Whatever caused the Universe must not be subject to the Energies and the Laws that Govern this Universe: Such must not obey the laws of Physics and Chemistry because the laws of Physics and Chemistry did not exist until after the big bang/inflation
5. The Cause of the Universe must be Uncaused because infinite regress of Cause and effect is Logically impossible.
6. Because Intelligence in Animals and Men cannot happen out of chaos, the Cause of Life must also be Intelligent and he has His purpose for creating the Universe.
7. The Cause of the Universe can therefore be called the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. As Christians we know His name as Yahweh and people just call Him God.

JessicaRabbit:
Not necessarily. A complex machine can have unintended emergent properties. Look at the intricate patterns formed by sandcastles - no intelligent designer needed. The central issue here is the jump from "intangible realities exist" to "therefore a deity exists." There's no logical connection. The universe could be brimming with intangible things, and none of them have to be a god.

You keep using software as an analogy for a deity, and that's fine, but then that deity would be a human creation, not some ultimate being. More like a really powerful chatbot, which, while impressive, wouldn't inspire much awe. So all in all, you've created an interesting thought experiment in your OP, but it doesn't really challenge atheism in the slightest, if we're being honest. It just demonstrates that some things can be real without being physical, which (I think) most atheists would readily agree with.

I spoke about inter-connected Systems:
Many times, several systems need to be working before the interconnected system even have a hope of working.

1. An Airplane is a Machine consisting of several systems. All these must be present before a plane can be called a flying machine. It must have a structurally sound aerofoil wing, it must have a propulsion engine. It must have a control surface. It must have a flight controller set (the rudder control, aerolon control, banking control etc).
2. Given ALL the parts of a Boeing 747 and an infinite time for which parts can be randomly connected together, do you think Chaos can eventually produce a plane?

jaephoenix:
You need a shrink ASAP

Haven't I taken ALL your conflicting definitions into view?
Summary:

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

2. If we use Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time (whether by touch or machine other than softwares) then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, magnetic Field Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will NOT be Tangible.

Do we agree to these two basic rules. We have an understanding asd a rule of Engagement

jaephoenix:
The Bible is a book adored by Christians. It has been found to contain a lot of errors, lies and contradictions and thus not a reliable book. I made a thread about it here, in case ya'll wanna check it out and debate on the points there. Unfortunately for Christians, the gaffess were so many, and they could not come up with any defenses.
But in this thread, I'm gonna concentrate on the creation story, cos a Christian challenged me to(Just like another christian challenged me to open a thread about the bible errors and in the end he never gave any defenses). The errors are so much that I have to take them in parts. So this is only Part 1

What are the factual errors in the Genesis creation account?
There are several errors, since it’s a creation myth based on the knowledge, superstitions and misconceptions of the people who wrote it, just like any other creation myth. Let’s consider just some of them:

Okay! Fire on!

jaephoenix:
1. Duration time for the creation. This is the first considerable problem. Genesis says that, from the early stages of the earth’s formation to the dawn of man, only six days passed, which is obviously wrong. We know this whole process took about 4 billion years. Many apologists try to solve this crude mistake by declaring that the word “day” has a more vague meaning, such as six general divisions of time. We don’t know this, however, and the whole context of the story seems closer to 24 hour days (for example, we constantly read “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”).

Day does not mean solar 24 Hours because if you note, the sun did not appear till the FOURTH day

jaephoenix:
2. The order of creation days. The order in which the creation events happened in the bible and the true geological and biological evolution of the earth are completely different. Some examples follow:

a. In Genesis 1:7 it says God divided the waters above and under the firmament. The only logical way to interpret this “firmament” or “heavens”, is the atmosphere, where water in vapour form is stored and eventually falls as rain. If this was done in a subsequent stage of the earth’s formation (day two), we would expect that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere should increase over time. We however know that the exact opposite happened, as carbon dioxide and water vapour were partly replaced by oxygen.

1. The whole earth was covered with water.
2. There was creation of the firmament (lower atmosphere) from the water. (There was no exact details about if some of the waters escaped through the upper atmosphere)
3. Then there was separation of the land from the remaining water

The Bible is not a scientific Book, thus no one can say the details of what happened with carbon dioxide and water vapour were partly replaced by oxygen.

NOTE: The earth was created from the Beginning of time but somehow, Gen 1:2 opened with the fact that the earth was destroyed (The Earth without Form and Void and covered with water). Therefore, most of CO2 or O2 or any other molecules were probably already present.

jaephoenix:
b. In Genesis 1:11 it suggests that plants were the first form of life to appear, what is obviously wrong. It also suggests that plants and animals appeared in different times, what we know not to be true. Last, if compared to Genesis 1:16–18, it indicates that plants came before the sun, which would be impossible since sunlight is a fundamental ingredient to the process of photosynthesis, which is how plants produce their food.

Light was the First thing God made in the re-creation of the earth even before the creation of the earth sir.
Even if Plants needed Light, this would suffice. Nevertheless, the God who created plants can sustain them before the creation of the sun. Do plants die immediately if they do not receive sun rays?

jaephoenix:
c. In Genesis 1:16–18, as discussed before, the sun comes only after the plants appeared on the planet, which is obviously absurd. Some apologists try to save this by alleging that the sun already existed but wasn’t visible until the fourth day, since the earth’s atmosphere was thicker. First of all, the atmosphere was already transparent enough to see the sun when the first plants appeared in the planet. Moreover, the organisms from which plants evolved had already “invented” the process of photosynthesis and hence needed a substantial amount of sunlight. Finally, there are several studies who show how a plant’s growth is deeply affected by an increased period of cloudy days, and so it’s absurd to suppose that big trees and others could have appeared in a time of thick atmosphere, where the portion of light entering the planet was so weak that the sun wasn’t even visible.

This had been trated above.

jaephoenix:
d. Genesis 1:20 and 24 suggests that flying animals came before land animals, which is just wrong due to the fossil and DNA knowledge we have.

Note: Verse 20 says both land and Flying animals were created. Verse 24 expands on verse 20.
Moreover everything happened on day 5.

jaephoenix:
3. Magical elements. Some apologists argue that the creation myth in Genesis has a special status, since it’s much more “sober” in terms of reality than the creation myths of other religions. First of all, what matters is the truth. To construct a fable with elements closer to reality doesn’t change the fact that it is a fable. Secondly, the fact that the Genesis account seems less mesmerizing than others is just because the israelites followed monotheism (or at least monolatrism), and hence their creation story was devoid of the many struggles between gods that commonly take place at the beginning of other myths. Finally, it’s important to remember that there are many magical elements surrounding the Genesis story: the book of Revelations talks about a war in heaven between a dragon and his hosts and an angel and his hosts; Genesis itself, just a few pages afterwards, talks about talking serpents, magic fruits and a universal flood that occured just because God was in a bad mood with humanity

Nlfpmod

TenQ
Aemmyjah
Olaadegbu
Elated177
Maxindhouse
Advocatejare


Etc

All Your questions have been answered:
You can Reason your Way to God or Choose to Stay Blind
1. An Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is Logically Impossible
2. Our Physical Universe has a beginning at about 13.8 Billion years ago. Time , Space and matter appeared simultaneously with this beginning
3. Whatever Caused the Universe to change from its state of Singularity to this universe must be outside our universe
4. Whatever caused the Universe must not be subject to the Energies and the Laws that Govern this Universe: Such must not obey the laws of Physics and Chemistry because the laws of Physics and Chemistry did not exist until after the big bang/inflation
5. The Cause of the Universe must be Uncaused because infinite regress of Cause and effect is Logically impossible.
6. Because Intelligence in Animals and Men cannot happen out of chaos, the Cause of Life must also be Intelligent and he has His purpose for creating the Universe.
7. The Cause of the Universe can therefore be called the Uncaused-First-Cause of Everything. As Christians we know His name as Yahweh and people just call Him God.

JessicaRabbit:
Personally, I'd like to think of this thread as a shoddy "appeal to intangibility gambit". Allow me to touch on a couple of things in your appeal.





While your definitions may seem objective, they're loaded to the brim with assumptions. Equating "real" with "exists" is highly disingenuous. Ideas like mathematics exist in the sense that they're consistent systems, even if they don't have physical form.



That's a very curious mix of examples of intangible realities you've got there. Life? Sure, that's a biological process, emergent from tangible systems. Software code? Absolutely real in the sense it produces effects, but it's still a human creation, not some fundamental essence.

For sake of time, and the fact that I'm busy tending to more pressing matters, I'll ignore the rest of your points that I consider irrelevant at the moment and just go straight to the questions... if you don't mind.

Please note that I'm speaking solely for myself when I answer your questions. Contrary to public opinion, atheists don't share any consensus on any matters at all. The only thing that connects atheists together is a LACK of belief in God or Gods.



Absolutely. Math, logic, even emotions are real, even if not physical.



That will be mostly dependent on the circumstances. If it's something with demonstrable effects, sure, demanding a physical form is unreasonable. But if it's, say, a magic invisible dragon that grants wishes, then yeah, some evidence beyond faith would be nice.



Sometimes effects are proof of existence. Sometimes, they're not. A footprint proves a creature walked there, but it doesn't tell you if it had feathers or scales. So, it depends on the quality of the effect.



Not necessarily. A complex machine can have unintended emergent properties. Look at the intricate patterns formed by sandcastles - no intelligent designer needed. The central issue here is the jump from "intangible realities exist" to "therefore a deity exists." There's no logical connection. The universe could be brimming with intangible things, and none of them have to be a god.

You keep using software as an analogy for a deity, and that's fine, but then that deity would be a human creation, not some ultimate being. More like a really powerful chatbot, which, while impressive, wouldn't inspire much awe. So all in all, you've created an interesting thought experiment in your OP, but it doesn't really challenge atheism in the slightest, if we're being honest. It just demonstrates that some things can be real without being physical, which (I think) most atheists would readily agree with.

Thanks a lot, at least you were fortright in giving me your opinion.

I would have responded in full except that i noticed that people have at least TWO widely different definition for that which is Tangible. Thus, I made two posts to clarify them and you were quoted.
School of thought ONE: I believe that this is where you fall on
Any reality that have effects on matter are tangible

School of thought TWO: This is where I belong
Any reality that have mass or dimension or have energy

I wish everyone will take a position and stick with it and the attendant consequences!