₦airaland Forum

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!

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

CC:
Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord
TheBillyonaire LordReed triplechoice: FRANCISTOWN: jaephoenix: JessicaRabbit

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

I think many of you have ignored my use of the definition of Tangible Realities of characterisable by Mass or Dimension (Length, Area or Volume) and Energy instead many were using tangible as
1. A Figure of Speech
2. Noun
3. Adjective (split into two definitions)
a. Describing a reality that is touchable or Handlable
b. Describing a reality that is untouchable but has effect on other objects

Example:
As an adjective, it describes something that is perceptible by touch or capable of being touched; it refers to something concrete, real, or definite. For example, "She wanted tangible evidence to support her claim."

As a noun, "tangible" refers to something that is fixed and visible, usually an object or item that can be perceived by touch. For example, "The company's assets include both tangible and intangible properties." In this context, "tangible" refers to physical assets like buildings, machinery, or inventory.


In our case: Tangible with respect to Software as used is treated as an Adjective
In the sentence "A software is NOT tangible," "tangible" is an adjective modifying the noun "software." It describes the characteristic of software as not being capable of being touched or physically perceived. So, "tangible" is functioning as an adjective here, expressing the quality of physical presence or tangibility.

The example of //Her Grief is tangible:
In the figure of speech "Her grief was tangible," the word "tangible" is used metaphorically to describe the intensity or palpability of the emotion of grief. It suggests that the grief is so profound and real that it feels as though it can be touched or physically sensed, even though emotions are abstract and intangible by nature. In this context, "tangible" is still functioning as an adjective, but it's used figuratively to evoke a vivid sense of the depth and concreteness of the emotion being described.

For the avoidance of doubt and for clarity
An adjective is a part of speech that modifies or describes a noun or pronoun, providing additional information about its qualities or attributes. Adjectives can indicate size, color, shape, age, personality, emotions, and many other characteristics of the noun they modify.


My Definitions :
https://www.nairaland.com/8069157/atheists-costly-error-assumption-everything#129569120
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Thus: Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects


The Objective Remain the Same:
Tangible here mean: Any Reality than can be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time Tangible does NOT mean having Effects (or else Gravity, Electric Field and Magnetic field will be tangible)
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?



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

CC:
Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord
TheBillyonaire LordReed triplechoice: FRANCISTOWN: jaephoenix: JessicaRabbit

Aemmyjah:
Emusan:
StillDtruth:

triplechoice:
Every
figure of speech is interpreted correctly by those who understand it, and must be interpreted by everyone who wants to know what it refers to.

I asked you what figure of speech is contained in the statement " Her grief is tangible"? Figures of speech have names. So don't just say it's a figure of speech and end it there.

Is it a simile, metaphor, hyperbole?

The Figure of Speech of "Her grief is tangible" is: Metaphor

Why:
In this metaphor, the word "tangible" is used to describe the quality of the grief being experienced by "her."
Grief, which is an abstract emotion, is being compared to something tangible or palpable, suggesting that it feels very real and can almost be physically sensed or touched.

jaephoenix:
Yes, consciousness is tangible. We feel it. When one loses consciousness , the person loses all senses of feeling, seeing, touching, hearing and tasting, the so-called human senses. S/he doesn't feel anything.
The problem u have is u have refused to accept the definition of tangibility. And I can't help u with that, I'm sorry. If you decide u would not accept the definition given by multiple well known and world class dictionaries, then I'm done here.

Have you agreed to the definition of Magnetic and Gravitational Fields as Real but not Tangible?

Can Consciousness be defined in terms of Matter, Space or Energy?

jaephoenix:
Your cells(whether hair, nail, bone etc) all contain life. This means they can grow and utilize oxygen. If they don't have life, they won't be able to do those actions. Thank you

I have modified the question for you:

Is consciousness Real or not: if it is real, is it Tangible?

The Soul is the center of Emotion, Will and Intellect : Using the same argument with consciousness is it Tangible or not?

KnownUnknown:
The question is straight out of the mind of a ignorant person who doesn’t even realize how benighted he is.

Of course a fool is one who cannot process a question yet claim the question doesn't make sense.

Example:
Is the President of Nigeria a man or a woman?
A Fools Response:
This question is straight out of the mind of a ignorant person who doesn’t even realize how benighted he is.
How can one know if Tinubu is a man or woman: there is no evidence he is a man or woman?


The rest of us shake our heads in amazement!

Ohyoudidnt:
Glad you accept Jesus or Yeshua didn't establish anything new. He even encouraged obedience of the priests and elders regarding the scripture.

Where really did Christianity come from?

Tell me with references, what are the names of Religions that Allah established?

jaephoenix:
If a programmer inserted a software into a machine memory, isn't that indication that the software exists?

1. I think we all agree that softwares in a Machine EXISTS and therefore Real!
2. The Question I am asking is that is the Software Within a Machine TANGIBLE?

jaephoenix:
Yes u can't touch software but they are tangible because we can interact with them
Software programming in the brain?

Do you agree that ANYTHING that is tangible Must have either a mass or a dimension or energy.

Do you agree with this:
Your Book is Tangible but the Information on it is NOT Tangible.
Your Television is Tangible but the Information from it is NOT Tangible.
Your Radio is Tangible but the Information from it is NOT Tangible.
Your Hands are Tangible but the Sign-Language Information from it is NOT Tangible.
Your Brail Book is tangible but the Information on it is NOT Tangible.
The Morse-code keys are Tangible but the Information from it is NOT Tangible.

With all these, you feel the effect of the communication by your Understanding, Entertainment , Emotion and others BUT the information neither has either a mass or a dimension or energy.

jaephoenix:
At what age does this programming happen?
From emotions, volition etc, babies learn all these from their environment. That's why a baby raised by animals behave like them. All the inputs comes from the interaction with the environment, and environment includes people and animals

Every AI machine is first TRAINED by programmers: The Training involves being loaded with Data and Information which makes the AI machine able to learn by itself when deployed. So also is the baby. All babies seem to have the gift of curiosity and adventure, they also seem to want to mimic what they see around them in their environment.

jaephoenix:
Gravity is tangible. We feel its effect and its measurable.
Same as electric and magnetic field.
Consciousness is not the same as life. There can be alive without consciousness. Viruses/bacteria and other life forms are alive but lack consciousness.
I think at this point u should tell us if u actually attended any school at all. Your reasoning is just daft

Please check: I see where you are making your gross errors.

We know there is Gravity because of its effects
BUT
Gravity is not made up of matter
Gravity does not have energy
Gravity does not have dimension
Gravity cannot be removed from one place to the other

In other words, Gravity is NOT Tangible even though it EXISTS
We can only Feel the Effects of Gravity on masses (the effect is what is called weight)

The same with Electric Fields and Magnetic Fields. We can feel their Effects on charges or other magnetic materials as Electric or Magnetic Forces, but the Fields themselves are NOT Tangible. They cannot be described as physical; they are invisible.

I agree with you that Consciousness is a Special subset of Life (or Living) therefore they may not be perfectly synonymous.

Therefore, I will use Consciousness rather than Life (for the rest of the discussion)

As a medical Doctor: Is Consciousness Tangible?

jaephoenix:
Are you always retarded? The screenshot even tells u cells are the unit of life

So the cells of my hair is Life?

Think Bro!

triplechoice:
Please don't misconstrue what I said. I emphasized that when talking about softwares alone,it doesn't make sense,but we all know that you're talking of spirit or God indirectly . So it makes sense to ask for prove or some form of physical quantification. The day you understand this is the day you stop believing





You want to be clever by half, but you failed again.
Take all your questions about software,to the right section and see if you won't be called mad by experts there.

Focus on the OP please

Modified. No one who's informed about the bolded will ever ask those questions. But someone who's not informed about spirit has not done anything wrong to ask. He wants to know what's spirit which you have been ruining away from defining directly, but hiding cowardly behind a software to do so

I know more about softwares or hardware than you ever think you know and this is why we are having problems with understanding BASIC things that need no argument.

Let me come down with you to ground zero and make basic explanations (which you can confirm about the software written i any machine)

Basic information about Information and Data written on Any Hardware
1. Softwares in a memory device is usually recorded in formated forms using appropriate file system format of disk partitions with data all in binary format on magnetic devices as magnetic North or South polarity, in Flash memories as ON or OFF in array of memory cells made from floating-gate transistors, in Optical Disks as Good or Bad Reflectance from microscopic data pits and lands arranged in a spiral track on the disk's surface etc.

2. The Recorded data on the memory devices do NOT add nor subtract any Material (such as atoms, molecules, electrons etc) from the physical device

3. If the File system on a memory device is NOT recognised by a machine, the data on it doesn't exist to the machine because it is NOT recognisable.

4. The same applies to the format in which a software is compiled on a memory device: even if the filesystem is recognized and the format in which the software is compiled on the machine is NOT, the software is NOT recognised. Like a software compiled for Windows OS will not run on a Mac or an Android or a Linux device (Unless we use an Emulator to translate the compiled code to the appropriate instruction format for the target OS)

5. Data or Information is erased from an appropriate hardware by either overwriting the data with random binary data or re-writing a new (different) memory partition on the memory device.
6. Since Data on a physical device Exist BUT is NOT physical, then it is NOT Tangible


Do these make sense or which one do you disagree with?

triplechoice:
There's enough evidence here that you're the expert of throwing tantrums everywhere. Perfect example was your reply to Francistown. It's was purely emotional reaction all through. Nothing reasonable

Name calling, insults and false accusations won't help you win an argument. It will only show you're losing the debate and frustrated.

See frying pan calling kettle black like Hamas.

When you are throwing insults to others it's okay but when you get insulted back you begin to cry.

In case you don't know me, I give you the kind of respect you give when you communicate.

It is one thing to communicate intelligently it is another when your obvious aim is to ridicule the person you are communicating with. Go check with Buda and most times Lord-Reed, we rarely get into a slug of words unlike many of you.

In other words, if you speak respectfully and with logic and common sense, you get a more productive response.

It is the person who cannot defend his position that loses an argument my dear. And this is reflective by how the person avoids answering direct questions with respect to to topic at hand

triplechoice:
Talking about softwares alone ,and not spirits, why would any sane person request for "physical evidence"for a software in a machine to know it exist ? Who does that? Your questions are very silly.

You don't want to tell the truth.Continue to play the ostrich while every other part of your body is exposed.

Be courageous and come out to talk about God or spirits. Stop hiding behind a software. Everyone can see you hiding there.

Good.

Only an insane person require a physical proof for a software in a machine.

This is representative of everything that Exists but not Tangible

Do you abree with me that It is insanity or gross ignorance to say:
Show me gravity?
What is the weight of gravity?
What is gravity made up from?

or

Do you abree with me that It is insanity or gross ignorance to say:
Show me Consciousness (Life) ?
What is the weight of Consciousness (Life)?
What is Consciousness made up from?

triplechoice:
You are just stupid. What truth do you know that goes against my position. Mention one and let's see how .You're very good at making empty statements to cover for your ignorance.

The statement in quote was to show I was quoting part of your question . You didn't understand it because you don't know what quotation marks are used for in English language.
Dundee United

And BTW what's the point of all these wayward questions ?

Did you skip your medications?

You throw tantrums like a child

See how much your How much is... argument was easily torn down

Question:
Take this N1000 and get me a loaf of bread of N800: How much change will you return to me?

triplechoice:
Something is really wrong with you.

What do actors do for God sake!

Grief is an individual's emotional reaction to real pain or what causes pain.No actor ever feels real pain except when they're not acting.

And why asking me the weight of grief ? Did I ever tell it has weight like matter?

Grief is tangible because it can be felt intensely. You're blinded by the word, grief, and not the reality it describes. And I have described it, and you can't see because you deliberately choose not to open your eyes to see.


If you're not satisfied with my explanations, you can use Google or chat box to understand how grief is tangible.

Omotola Jalade Ekeinde
Richard Mofe-Damijo
Will Smith

Are ALL good actors: They are bereaved : so we ask the questions

A Good Actor is expressing Grief: can you measure its weight?

A Good Actor is Crying: can you measure the weight of his Grief?

Can you tell the difference?

triplechoice:
It has been answered, but your friend won't accept the answers .

The questions are even needless. Nobody ever ask those before using a software. He has an agenda he's denying .

Tell him to tell you the actual reason behind the questions. He has refused to answer directly.

Then why ae you avoiding to answer DIRECTLY simple Questions?
Are you afraid of the implications, so you will rather deny the obvious for the sake of remaining in an argument?

I dare you answer each question with not more than one sentence each.
Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!
4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

triplechoice:
Her grief was tangible is not a figure of speech.

When you see someone seriously grieving, you can describe it as tangible. A tangible grief is one that's intensely felt and seen by others watching you. That's the meaning


You only know one meaning of tangible and that's the problem you have.

If you say it's a figure of speech,then mention what figure of speech it's. Figures of speech have names.

Is it UNTRUE that every Figure of Speech must be interpreted?


This is exactly what you've done!

Everyday247:
Wow, i just logged in right now and saw this mention. op i didn't really read what you posted, but it was very long and i believe you spent a lot of time on it so you get an E for effort. Good job boss.

Note:
A donkey can carry a whole library of books on its back but remain stupid
Reason: he thinks its Too Much information, so he would rather NOT read but nevertheless take a position of knowing the content!

Have a nice day sir!

FRANCISTOWN:
You wrote too many things, that I don't even know where to start from.
I'll only answer according to the way I understand the world.

To begin with, I'd like you to state where you got the notion that atheists say that everything must be tangible. Did you get it from the atheists' Bible, is there anything like that? Because I'm sure I've never said anything like that despite being an atheist.

I have interacted with Atheists especially here on Nairaland to know that it is their view. Their reaction even to this thread is an example of that

FRANCISTOWN:
Things that are not real are not necessary virtual. Lemme use the same example that you used.
Your image in the mirror is not you, but it doesn't mean the image doesn't exist.

If it is virtual, it doesn't exist! This is why going to the back of the mirror actually proves that what was seen wasn't real. In Optics, images are either REAL or VIRTUAL

FRANCISTOWN:
When you stand in front of a mirror, the photons and the waves of electromagnetic radiations from your reflection hitting the surface of the mirror produces your image.
Which actually exists. Your image is virtual, but the photons and the electromagnetic radiations are real.

But the EM isnt the Image

FRANCISTOWN:
The basis for this debate is that "Atheists say whatever isn't tangible isn't real".

True!
I am showing that several examples abound for EXISTENCES that are REAL but NOT TANGIBLE
One of these is the SOFTWARE in a Machine!

FRANCISTOWN:
Since I haven't said that, I don't think it's necessary for me to defend what you assumed.
However, not everything that is intangible is inexistent.

This is good;
Now the Question for you is this:
The Software within a Machine is obviously REAL but is it TANGIBLE?

FRANCISTOWN:
I'm an atheist and I do not base my lack of beliefs on the tangibility of a reality. I think it will get interesting if you could call out the atheists who base their lack of beliefs on the tangibility of a reality.

This is not the point:
It is just a stepping stone to something rational

Are you saying that your Being an Atheist is NOT because you lack a Belief in any Deity BUT you hold a rational position?

FRANCISTOWN:
I didn't insult you first. I'm always sure of that.

You di sir.

I gave you evidence

Do you want to check the first ever post you made to me on this subject?
https://www.nairaland.com/8061156/atheist-says-spirit-nothing-because/13#129598386

triplechoice:
. Is an actor really grieving or pretending to be?

Why do you want to measure what's not real , but mere pretence, acting . There's no real grief there and so nothing to measure. Why can't you understand this?

Talk of a situation where an individual is grieving for real not an actor. You want to set a trap for yourself not me.

How can you know that the Actor is not Acting?


Can an Actor not experience Grief?

A Good Actor is expressing Grief: can you measure its weight?

A Good Actor is Crying: can you measure the weight of his Grief?

jaephoenix:
U can determine the extent of grief by observing the reaction. Some express grief by just moping at space, some cry, some roll on the floor. These are degrees of expression of grief
Any other questions, stupido!?

So, the fact that a Grieving person is Quiet does confirm that his grieve is small compared with the one who is rolling on the floor?

jaephoenix:
So I'm taking your advice and doing Google searches. This is another one, from my Google enabled AI
Look at the hit.
Do u have any other stupid question to ask?

Does Cells possess Life was your question: Was that my question?

Is [b]Life aka Consciousness TANGIBLE?[/b]

jaephoenix:
You just like arguing stupidly.
I have shown u that software is tangible according to MW definitions and u r here talking bs

What is the tangibility of softwares within the machine?


Is Gravity Tangible?
Is the Electric Field tangible?
Is the magnetic Field Tangible?
As a medical Doctor: Is Consciousness (Life) Tangible?

Mr FRANCISTOWN
Please before you respond: Do we agree on these below
1. Softwares in a memory device is usually recorded in formated forms using appropriate file system format of disk partitions with data all in binary format on magnetic devices as magnetic North or South polarity, in Flash memories as ON or OFF in array of memory cells made from floating-gate transistors, in Optical Disks as Good or Bad Reflectance from microscopic data pits and lands arranged in a spiral track on the disk's surface etc.
2. The Recorded data on the memory devices do NOT add nor subtract any Material (such as atoms, molecules, electrons etc) from the physical device
3. If the File system on a memory device is NOT recognised by a machine, the data on it doesn't exist to the machine because it is NOT recognisable.
4. The same applies to the format in which a software is compiled on a memory device: even if the filesystem is recognized and the format in which the software is compiled on the machine is NOT, the software is NOT recognised. Like a software compiled for Windows OS will not run on a Mac or an Android or a Linux device (Unless we use an Emulator to translate the compiled code to the appropriate instruction format for the target OS)
5. Data or Information is erased from an appropriate hardware by either overwriting the data with random binary data or re-writing a new (different) memory partition on the memory device.
6. Since Data on a physical device Exist BUT is NOT physical, then it is NOT Tangible.

Of course: What is your definition of an existence being Tangible?



My Questions:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

FRANCISTOWN:
I already explained this, I can't go back to it


The warping of spacetime and the motion of objects through the warped spacetime resulting into the interaction between two masses.
Though Einstein said it is the result of each object responding to the effect that the other has on the space-time surrounding it. But it doesn't change the fact that GRAVITY IS INDEED A FORCE and also an EFFECT.
But generally, Gravity is a force.


Why do I need ChatGPT to assist me with what I learnt while in school several years ago? You use ChatGPT for what you don't know.
I know these things like mad.


If you can bring out one error in what I said about computer, then I'll admit to this statement. If not, allow me to mentor you for a year.


"... believe half of what you see." Edgar Allan Poe


Lol! You think so? You are actually guilty of that.
Just refute what I've said if you thought anything was wrong with it.


You don't need ChatGPT for what you know, innit? Throughout all my debate on this platform with anyone. I've never consulted Google for anything unless someone refers me. I naturally know a lot of things and I've read lots of books. I mean lots of books, believe me. So, most of the times, I always know what I talk about.


1. I never said softwares within a machine are tangible or not tangible. I only said they exist.

2. Softwares are observable and highly interactive (you are forgetting the highly part)

I guess you are taking interactive to be response to stimulus. Hardware may respond to stimulus, but softwares are HIGHLY interactive.

I've actually gotten you where I wanted to get you. You asked me the other time if I've ever programmed, a code to print out "Hello World!" in my life.


In software development, even before the prototype.
One of the first thing we consider as we design the template is the IUI( Interactive user Interface)
During the days of CLP,(command line programming), we were using CUI (Character User interface)
For instance in those days when you write.

F_Name = raw_input()

And you run that code. There is going to be an insertion point on the screen indicating where to insert the characters.

You'll understand better if you've ever written a code in Fortran, Cobol, python console and especially shell, and CMD.

GUI came so that softwares can be more interactive. Any software that is not interactive cannot be deployed. Please use your ChatGPT and learn more on software development.

There will always be a clear difference between who uses chatGTP and who actually does it.

Leave ChatGPT and lemme mentor you. I'll explain using the language that you understand the most.

Is there anything else you wish to learn from me?

Dont insist on falsehood just to keep yourself in an argument
1. Gravity is NOT a force
2. You need ChatGPT because you seem to have either "mis-learned" what you think you know from school. People who cannot review their response from other authorities are either intellectually lazy. Be humble to let ChatGPT be of assistance to you: The AI program is not always correct but it gives you a starting point.
3. The argument had never been about the EXISTENCE of Softwares within the Machine: they exist (All of us know that). The Argument had been about whether SOFTWARES within a machine is Tangible or NOT!

Are Softwares within a MACHINE TANGIBLE or NOT?
4. Is it untrue that you said:
"Softwares are observable and interactive. Even if you can't touch them. Therefore they exists.
Don't be a stupid boy." https://www.nairaland.com/post/129602819

So, my question all along had been: (please mind the wordings)
iii. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
iv. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
v. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?



5. You have shown me that you could actually program the computer, therefore I will make a fresh post just for you so that we can start afresh without any bias




6. BTW:
I'd like to learn some hardware programming from you probably using Renesas R7FA4M1AB, ATmega328P or 32U4 or 2560, or STM32.
Secondly, I am very rusty because it's a very long time ago that I tried disassembling specifically software programs for the purpose of hacking it (we used to use WinDasm and Hiew programs): when can I start my class?

LOL!

You need not respond and you can proceed to the nex post if you get the gist>

triplechoice:
I dey laugh 😂 . You must be smoking something.

See how you finally exposed your ignorance.
However you describe it, whether you remove the "if" or not to deceive yourself it's still hypothetical because it never did happen.

What's the actual date of the event? If you can't provide that then it's not a real or has happened.


Stop fooling yourself and just rest. Please look up the meaning of hypothetical situation before replying.

BTW what has the event,the gravitational pull and the rest got to do with grief?
Modified.
The first clause before asking "how much energy will"...... is a conditional clause, but you stupidly remove the "if" because you don't know its function. Read the first one that has the "if" and the edited one and notice how it doesn't flow or make sense. You be Dundee united. I swear

And the same you have been calling out others for not understanding English language. Yeye they smell

Your problem is that you will rather insist on falsehood than admit the truth that goes against your position.

Speaking of one who doesnt understand English; "how much energy will"

Watch this similar Question:
Take this N1000 and get me a loaf of bread of N800: How much change will you return to me?

This is another hypothetical question by your royal eminence!


Who is the Dundee United?

KnownUnknown:
Christ fucking Jesus!! SMH

The question is too much for your immature mind to comprehend!?

jaephoenix:
Nobody says the CPU has no effects from softwares.
You're the illiterate here

Apart from human experience about the programming of software and how it interacts with the machine, is there any PHYSICAL evidence that softwares exist in a machines memories?

Softwares in a machine are NOT physically detectable by any means: you need another software to detect them (speaking of a circular problem)

How do you know for certain that the Brain has NO software programming of its own?

jaephoenix:
Those characteristics are from the brain. I thought I have told you before . There are neurones that carry impulses from those parts of the brain through tracts and then respective destinations.
Nothing concern soul for here

Your post is just equivalent to saying that the CPU alone is what is responsible for every activity of the Computer and NOT the software (information). Is this your admission?

Are Neurons the information in the brain or carriers of information?
Where does the information carried by the Neurons come from?