₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Did you go to school? Show me proof you went to school. Don't show me a certificate o, show me you went to school. That's how nutso you sound. Completely nutso. Whatever cave you are living in leave there and go meet people before you run stark raving mad.

With Atheistic voice I ask: Show me mathematics?
I want to touch it!
How much does it weigh?

The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
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.

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

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.


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?





LordReed, Budaatum, triplechoice, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix, HopefulLandlord, Everyday247, Seun,

StillDtruth:
Yes o!

Clear proof that they are Liars and that they know their Lies would fall under good examination and scrutiny. So they are running

Atheists love the freedom Darkness presents to them. It is easy to be exactly how you want to be without the guilt of submission to God who is the LIGHT

triplechoice:
The irony.

It is the truth: this is why MOST atheists do not have adverse position to Gender fluidity

triplechoice:
Haba. Calm down. I said I'm not an atheist. You keep ignoring this, why?

If you won't explain it ,why are you here? This thread is about spirits not computer softwares. There's no where it's written down that to understand spirit you must know what's a software. You made that up yourself ,and it's a very dishonest way of escaping from doing what you should do.

Using your logic,I can also affirm that if you can't comprehend what's oxygen in biology you can't understand what's spirit. Spirit is not intangible as you think. It depends on how it manifest,and there 're different manifestations of spirit. Spirit from a material point of view, simply means energy.

If you're not going to discuss spirit,then forget it and thanks for your time and the insults too.

You just can't assume that another person can't make sense of what you haven't even started to discuss or explain .I can also assume you don't really know your subject very well hence you're afraid to discuss it so your incompetency is not fully exposed.

So , who are you for everything about you reeks of Atheism!
Of course there are many flavours of Atheism: for me , if you act as an Atheist, you must be an atheist.

If you can bother with going through my old threads, you will see me describe what a spirit is. Unfortunately, these are things atheists will scorn at thoughtlessly.

It is not worth it.

My strategy of explaining any spiritual things to an atheist is to first find a similar physical things that they can understand and then use it as a pivot to explain the spiritual. If they cannot comprehend the physical, there is no point explaining the spiritual.

Tell me:'
Do you think that a person who holds a position that ANYTHING that is not Tangible is FICTICIOUS will understand what a spirit is?

budaatum:
One thing I never do is post credentials as a reason for knowledge. If I would, the relevant ones to this topic would be B.Eng Electronics and Communications, London. In my days we were 'programming' in COBOL and C and sometimes directly in machine code, so God help you if your one was in the zero's place. I would love my knowledge of philosophy and how to think and reason to hold sway here too.

But the n, you should understand that data in a storage device is meaningless if it is not in the expected format. When a CD or HDD is written with 10 GB of Data, the truth of the matter is that NOTHING of a physical nature increases on the HDD. Similarly, when a 30 TB HDD is wiped clean of Data, nothing DECREASES on the HDD.

budaatum:
When you program in C/Cpp, Python, you are "touching" it. If you want to debug your program, you will remove it from the machine and "touch" it to do so. So why would you insist we go looking for the software inside the machine despite some of us telling you what we would do? Would you tell us to go look for electricity inside the machine from the machine's point of view also and without using a multimeter?

I think you are seeing software as the High Level Language written on the VDU: but this is not true. The Software is the FINAL Formatted Sequence of Binary or Hexadecimal Code that is written in the CPU or HDD.

budaatum:
And we are saying that you don't impose a point of view on anyone! It's why we keep informing you that we can take the software out of the machine's point of view and place it in our own point of view so we can feel and touch and see it since we don't share senses with a machine and therefore feel and touch things differently.

The imposition of a point of view is how religion captivates it's audience. And you ought to by now know that atheists do not allow themselves to be captivated so.

Read some of my posts on the Garden of Eden. It's all about a point of view that differs to the generally accepted point of view, which you and I should perhaps discuss in its own right.

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/7351620/story-adam-eve-makes-sense#117003826

I think my question was very specific and demands that the answers be with respect to the point of view of the Machine

Check My Questions again: everything was with respect to what happens WITHIN the Computer

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?

So you can understand when I insisted on what happens from the point of view of the Computer and not the programmer

budaatum:
TenQ, I agree with you that A more precise definition would be that Tangible things are anything that has mass or dimension or energy or can change state with time.

In fact, Quine, whom I will post at the end, is agreeing with you, and if I tell you a secret, my Lord and I have almost never disagreed and he agrees with you too.
And just so it's not I'm lying, first person to find otherwise my Lord will make me pay 10k. Just quote link.

I am glad that we are coming to a consensus on this.

budaatum:
Unfortunately. There are no precise definition of words, or at least we human beings are not normally intelligent enough or know enough that the definition we give a word is more precise than any other. It's probably why there are so many dictionaries. Everyone writes their own because we do not agree on precision.

Personally? I think it is really rather absurd (gibberish, even), to claim one precisely defines any word with very complex and imprecise words like "mass or dimension or energy or can change state with time". These are words that have had so many meanings over the history of time, and that keep evolving, that precision just eludes them completely, just as that of tangible has and does.

Anyway, below is Quine. The entire article itself is revealing, and moreso the references.

I agree that words are imprecise at best. This is probably why it is better to adopt the scientific wordview because they are more precise than the simple dictionary terms.
Scientific terms will usually take into consideration for definition things that are beyond the view of natural senses to comprehend.

StillDtruth:
Actually, their love for evil and their hatred for God is what prevents them from immediately seeing that they are been deceived with Lies.

John 3:20 describes what happens to people who love evil.

20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light

Atheism is a spiritual disease: an infection that take deliverance from strong demons out of their lives.
It starts with the kind of question to EVE and conclude with "God does not Exist"

AbuTwins:
No! Samson killed himself with the presence of the Holy spirit!
So you can also do same!

So, you now realise how stupid and illogical your position is!

StillDtruth:
The comment is even scattered and has no sense to be gotten from it.

See how they are avoiding the questions: the truth will expose them for they love darkness rather than Light

StillDtruth:
See! They have all run away and refuse to answer the questions!

They are pretending that they cannot read English again!

StillDtruth:
They never ask questions. Once their white masters speaks they lap it all up like brainless hamsters, stupidly regurgitating what their white master told them, not even stopping to think and to see.

Stupid Brainwashed none wits!

They think because they read books christians usually would not read, that they are smarter. Their arrogance prevents them from knowing the truth.

StillDtruth:
Is this for me, because you did not ask me?

So sorry, this was not for you. I apologise!

StillDtruth:
Because people are too hungry searching for food and therefore are not acquiring knowledge is why they stupidly thought they had knowledge, whereas, they were being taught to be very stupid.

That is why they are very quick to abuse and insalt anyone who dares point out that they are wrong.

Inherently, they knew they were stupid, just that they did not know until someone points it out to them. Which is why the next you would.see is that they would start raining abuses and insalts and call their fellows in foolishness to join in the abuse and bullying of the person who dared to correct them.

I agree with you.

They have trusted the Charles Dawkins and co that they don't even bother to ask questions before joining the atheist bandwagon

StillDtruth:
That is why the fool is dodgng! He knows he is cornered and that he cannot lie his way out of this.

I asked you BASIC questions: isnt the fool the one who cannot defend his speech when he is asked questions about it?

TheBillyonaire:
TenQ

What is the purpose of this thread?

There is a vacuum in your understanding of Universal Cosmology, but in your arrogance, you have assumed that you know it all so by default you set an entropy in motion and no sane person is ready for energy vampirism.

So do you want to achieve with this thread?

Here below are my objectives
To show atheists that there are Real Existences that are NOT Tangible.
The fact that they are not tangible does not mean that such is real.
Understanding this will allow them to understand similar deeper things.

TheBillyonaire:
For benefit of all doubts - Divine Spirit is precursor of Lord Gods of Planets of Existence. Lord Gods lead all other Gods. Gods are ancient astronauts and scientists that designed Humanity and humans are capable of joining League of Gods by gaining the intelligence to join the League of Cosmic Super Intelligent minds that manage the omniverse.

So God Consciousness is a level of Consciousness, just as Christ Consciousness governs over AI Consciousness. This is the Secret Trinity of Spirit.
Divine Spirit permeates all and is beyond Gods.

All the highlighted above are NOT Pantheism o!
Pantheism does not believe in a Person who is God but that the totality of the Universe is God (as a concept).
In Pantheism, there is no Divine Consciousness called God o!

You have mixed Pantheism with something else o!


And you asked me to go study pantheism!?

gaskiyamagana:
How story - story about your Jesus - God, god _jesu in the Bible were not affected by Jeremiah 8 : 8?

Think what you will: remember you asked me for explanation of Jer 8:8 and it was given to you in full. Too bad if you didn't read it.

Most people deceived by 419 Agents trust the source of their information and choose to ignore every red flag they see in their document.

The purpose of this text is to show you that your Preferred narratives about the Quran does not add up. Meaning that it is a fabrication

AbuTwins:
Father is invisible!
Son is visible man!
Holy Spirit too is like an animal, a dove!

And all of them are one not three!

Your ignorance screams to the rooftop.

You say: There is nothing like God, but you adopt a Deity not different from Iblis!

Can Allah be on his throne and come to the earth at the same time?

Can Allah be on his throne and come to the the heavens at the same time?

AbuTwins:
So I should tell you his name?
Seriously, are you asking me this?

When you can't engage in any sane discussion than to jump from today to yesterday and from yesterday to next week!

Please give me his name : I am expecting a fabrication

AbuTwins:
They don't need to be commanded!

Paul said All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16

Those verses are teaching you something you don't know!

Those verses are God-breathed telling you some place must be faced!

Like Judas hung himself!
Everyone should start hanging themselves


You see how your argument scatter like harmattan dust?



But why do you face the Black stone when you Muslims pray?

jaephoenix,
Is this set of questions difficult to answer


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?

TheBillyonaire,
Is this set of questions difficult to answer


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?

TheBillyonaire:
You are right on point, Yes. I intentionally omitted that angle. Both are right and wrong and cancel each other out. It is a null set.

When someone ask,; ' Does God exist?. There is no answer, cos the question does not exist.

There is evidence of absence and there is absence of evidence. Yet there is evidence of presence and presence of evidence.

It seems you have shifted Your Atheistic position.

If I get you correctly God is now the entity of the Universe, thus He doesn't exist as a person as all we see around is God


This makes sense to you?

Then this your "Pantheism God" is a Dummy who at best doesn't exist!



Let me ask you a basic question :
Time, Space and Matter came to being simultaneously about 13.8 billion years ago.
If this is true, where was your "Pantheistic Deity" before this time?
Sorry, you don't really believe in a perticular Deity :this is to find out how true this philosophy is with respect to time (within space and before space)

TheBillyonaire:
I have sent TenQ to a recess.

I can guarantee that he is reading up Pantheism now. The good news is that when one understands Pantheism, he becomes wiser than both Theists and Atheists cos they are both wrong.

There is historical evidence of multiples of Gods and there is presently evidence of absence of Gods cos we have become Gods in numerical titles. God is a Cosmic Level Position, a title defined by intelligence quotient and not a being.

All are by products of Divine Spirit.

So your brains need to start braining.

If your God is a cosmic level position and NOT a Being!

It is either God is a Consciousness (Being) or God is NOT a Consciousness (Being) which is your position?

sonmvayina:
or both are right..

Both cannot be right sir!

It is either God is a Consciousness (person) or God is NOT a Consciousness (person)!

jaephoenix:
I have described tangibility for you as documented on the MW Dictionaries. If you don't like it, hug a transformer.
Please where does all these questions lead to? Whats your point?
Are you saying spirit is real or tangible?

Like:
Her Grief was tangible!


1. Is this an objective judgement?
2. What is the value of Grief that will make it tangible?

Your royal majesty seems not to know what a figure of speech is: do you?

TheBillyonaire:
No, you do not.

If you had knowledge of Pantheism, you wont be engaging in arguments about Atheism and Theism, cos both are flawed and you would have known that.

Knowledge of Pantheism is NOT the same as Believing in the stupid doctrine is it?


I read of some philosophical concept of God and existence and I find it laughable : how will I then subscribe to it because I studied it some time ago?

TheBillyonaire:
I asked you to research on Pantheism and you are talking about Pantheneism? Are you alright?

Why don't you do research on Christianity instead?

jaephoenix:
Bro, please if you don't like dictionary definitions then don't bother using any dictionary at all. If you have beef with that definition, please write up Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Longman etc and explain to them that they are wrong
Thank you

This is why you should concur that you subscribe to the following meaning .


"I've told you a million times!" means exactly that I told you 1,000,000 times.

"His eyes drank in the beauty of the scene." mean that one can drink with the eyes.

"I could eat a horse!" meaning, I could literally eat a full grown horse.

"The backpack weighed a ton." meaning that one the weighing scale it's weight was one tonne

Same way with

Her Grief was tangible! What is the meaning?

Then I wiil take it that you know exactly what you are saying

jaephoenix:
1. I didn't make the example of grief being tangible. MW did. So if you think they are clowns, please shoot them a mail. And please dont tell them you're a Nigerian cos they may assume all Nigerians are retards
2. I get the info that this thread is about spirits, so can you give the qualities of spirit
Thank you

Not until you understand simple things that can be seen and processed!

jaephoenix:
There are other definitions of tangible there including the one that said any entity that can be appraised is tangible, but u ignored it. R u this stupid

Do you agree that It is a stupid definition (from a real point of view) : it only makes sense as a figure of speech.



What can be appraise as tangible:Grief!?

How do you measure the grade of tangibility?

jaephoenix:
Bro, please if you don't like dictionary definitions then don't bother using any dictionary at all. If you have beef with that definition, please write up Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Longman etc and explain to them that they are wrong
Thank you

Just like I don't like the modern definition of Gender, I don't like the modern definition of Atheism.


Atheism mean: Without Deity (except you disagree with this definition).

Then you may let us have your own preferred definition and let us dissect it.


Like I have halped you break down a common misconception that Atheism is Lack of Belief in Any Deity

What is your own definition?