₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
Again, please go online and check what tangibility means. Merriam Webster said any concept that can be appraised is tangible, and that includes math. Mathematics is tangible because we can actually utilize it in programming, architecture, even medicine. Are you really this dumb in real life?

Stupid atheists don't know when a word is a figure of speech.

Can you measure Grief?
Tell me, According to Webster dictionary, how many kilograms of Griefs is in your head?
What is the unit of measurement of Grief?

Your ignorance amaze me!

triplechoice:
I didn't betray anything. In fact I been observing very well how you continue to demonstrate your level of intelligence for the whole world to "commonly observe it
Your low IQ is a "common observable " Meet a doc to prescribe some IQ boosting pills to boost it .

It is here for all to see that to you Atheists on Nairaland
Information, Mathematics, Software and Life.
Are all Tangible Realities!


And you don't have an iota of shame!?

triplechoice:
I don't own a deity. I'm a deity and we're all deities.

All atheists are their own deity. By that definition, you are an Atheist!

triplechoice:
. You have failed already. We now know your god is as simple as a software that can easily be destroyed. I mean your on god not that of other Christians who know how to respect others they discuss with

I have not said anything about God to you have I?

See how common Logic finished all of you:but will you reason?
No!

Ohyoudidnt:
Did Ibn Masood have any complains about the compilation at Abu Bakr's request?

Lousy talk about number of breastfeeding and adults or and child are baseless. Quran 2:233 mentions 2 years not number and is for the infant baby to young toddler. All other talk is rooted in mischief so get a rest or study critically the reasons for the council's of Nicea and all excesses therein

It is your hadiths through Aisha that spoke of some of the verses like breastfeeding of Adult men five times not me.


Sunan an-Nasa'i 3324
It was narrated that 'Urwah said:
"The rest of the wives of the Prophet refused for anyone to enter upon them on the basis of that type of breast-feeding, meaning breast-feeding of an adult. They said to 'Aishah: 'By Allah, we think that what the Messenger of Allah told Sahlah bint Suhail to do was a concession which was granted by the Messenger of Allah only with regard to breast-feeding Salim. By Allah, no one will enter upon us, nor see us on the basis of this type of breast-feeding.'"


Was Salim 2 years old?

Ohyoudidnt:
The topic of this thread is
What Was Wrong With Abubakar's Quran: Perfect Preservation Of The Quran - Religion - Nairaland

Inform clearly if this is no longer valid.

On Zaid's completion of the collation of the Quran for the generality and purpose of this discussion called the Uthmani codex, he compared the Mushaf prepared then with the suhuf prepared during Abu Bakr's time.

He then stated:
I compared the Mushaf with those manuscripts and they did not differ in anything- Mushkil al-Athar; Hadith 2645

Ibn Ḥajar writes:
The difference between the ṣuḥuf and the muṣḥaf is that the ṣuḥuf are the separate parchment sheets on which the Qur’an was compiled during the era of Abū Bakr. They contained the surahs [chapters] separately, each surah arranged independently with its verses, but the surahs were not arranged sequentially. When they were copied and arranged in a sequence, they became a muṣḥaf

The issue is this:
1. If the Qur'an was collected during the lifetime of of Mohammed, why did Abubakr commission Zaid to collect the Qur'an afresh?
2. What happened to the Qur'an of Mohammed.?
3. Abubakr finally collected the complete Qur'an kept with Hafsa how come another Quran (Of Uthman) was made which updated that of Hafsa)?

[quote author=SIRTee15 post=129551001][/quote]They hate the truth like plague!

jaephoenix:
I have come to the realization that either u are alexic or just plain stupid

I posted the definition of tangibility from merriam-webster, one of the most acceptable dictionaries and it clearly stated there that any concept/entity that can be appraised is tangible, but no, u won't read it but continue harassing us with ur dumbery. Thus words like mathematics, information are tangible

And your royal Ignoramus doesn't know when "the tangible" is a figure of speech


//her grief was tangible

Is a grief tangible?

triplechoice:
But I'm not atheist.

What is the name of your Deity

LordReed:
Now I know you are on a stupid clown show. Bwahahahahaha!

Caught in your own web of ignorance : show us the physical proof of mathematics.

Is 1+2=3 the proof of mathematics?

triplechoice:
Silly talk.

Like saying if one cannot comprehend how to levitate in their dreams,how can one comprehend what it means to fly a plane . What's the connection.

How does a knowledge of softwares connect with spirit and God.

No logicality in your thinking at all, and that's why you easily believe

You have all betrayed your ignorance of common observables like
Information
Mathematics
Software and
Life.

Your level of intelligence is worth re-evaluating!

triplechoice:
You're chatting with someone who doesn't know what's a proof of something. He only knows one thing and doesn't know that proof is synonymous with demonstration.

He wants to see a picture of intelligence before he accepts someone in front of him is demonstrating intelligence through what they say and do

Fools!
What is the proof of mathematics?

budaatum:
The only reason you resort to insults is you lack the intellectual capacity for an intelligent conversation, and that's enough for you to be considered intangible and therefore ignored.

The post wasn't directed at you so I don't know how it is your business when a fool is called by his proper name.

triplechoice:
Then ,Why have you been acting irresponsibly by derailing the thread with something that has nothing do with the topic under discussion, spirit?

Why don't you create your own thread and invite those whom you want to invite?


If you're not using all of these as an extended metaphor for spirits or God,why are you directing your questions specifically to atheists whose position negates spirits and God ?



If your intentions are what you say they're,why are you acknowledging the commendations of fellow believers, including the JW? Why not just tell them it's not about spirit so they focus on the main?

See , you can fool some,not all.

Your ignorance of what an extended metaphor is, is why you think you can fool everyone.

You can continue to play the ostrich. That's your business .

I'm sure your fellow believers are getting very embarrassed seeing how you're now trying to foolishly deny what they have been praising you for.

My friend this thread is set to take us to the land of spirits and goblins. So, please take your discussion about software to where it's much needed. Thank you

Modified. Let me paraphrase your nonsense below

If a God is not tangible, i e, it cannot measured in terms of mass, dimension, energy and time, does it prove it doesn't exist?

It doesn't prove it doesn't exist,but it proves it doesn't exist here in the material world. It's very possible it exist only in your head. That's all

If you know all of the meaning attached to the word, tangible, you don't need to be told how stuoid your question is. If something is not tangible at all. It doesn't exist anywhere to even talk of measuring it

Because anyone who cannot comprehend this common simple truth is too immature to comprehend deeper things

LordReed:
LoLz. Mathematics doesn't have physical proof? You are a fucķing clown. Bwahahahahaha!

Is Mathematics the abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts ( pure mathematics ), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics or what is written on paper ?

Stupidity!
What is the proof of mathematics?

Can you please show me mathematics because I want to give some to my wife?

I have not even once related software in a machine to soul or spirit. All I've been knocking into your thick skulls is that
1. There are REAL existences that are not TANGIBLE!
2. Anything that is TANGIBLE must have either a mass , a dimension or energy and can relate with time.
3. It is stupidity to require a Physical proof of that which is not tangible.
4. I gave other examples of INTANGIBLES that are nevertheless REAL
a. LOGIC
b. MATHEMATICS
c. INFORMATION
d. LIFE
5. Then I gave a challenge for you to find a physical means (measurement of mass, dimension, energy) by which you can measure these real intangibles like Software, Logic, Mathematica nd Information

Again 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 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?



Unfortunately, all I see are confused shallow thinkers who do not know the difference between a MEDIUM to carry NON-TANGIBLES and the NON-TANGIBLE
Examples of Atheists
1. Mathematics is tangible because you can write it on paper
2. Life is Tangible because of the Effects it cases to living Beings
3. Logic is Tangible because we can write in in papers
4. Information is Tangible because we can write in in memo and we can transmit it by radio waves.
5. Softwares are tangible because the produce effects on the machine


How stupid can some educated people be?

CC: budaatum: jaephoenix: LordReed triplechoice:

Learn wisdom, not just talks!

budaatum:
And now that we've gotten this far, can anyone state whether spirits are tangible or not, since that is why TenQ introduced the idea of tangibility in the first place?

No sir:
You are not Worthy of the knowledge: because you cannot even comprehend mundane "physical" things, how much more spiritual

jaephoenix:
Mathematics is a branch of science. I think tangible. Cos we feel its effects and can directly study it. We see the branches of math.
Same as logic.
Information is tangible too

Now before you start convulsing, here is Merriam Webster definition of tangible

tangible
1 of 2
adjective
tan·​gi·​ble ˈtan-jə-bəl
Synonyms of tangible
1
a
: capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE
b
: substantially real : MATERIAL
2
: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible
3
: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value


From the above definition, we can deduce mathematics, information etc are all tangible since we can appraise them

In other words
1. Grief is Tangible
2. Grief can be Appraised by value.


Then everything and every emotion is tangible.

This is your brilliant conclusion!
SMH.


You see why you are a waste of precious time?

triplechoice:
Using a computer software as an extended metaphor for your god and denying it at the same time is dishonest behavior .

When the word ,software, in your questions is replaced with Spirit or God, your deception is easily exposed.

You can't use your knowledge of computer softwares to interpret how the god in the Bible exist. Doing so is ridiculing yourself, mocking and limiting your god by equating it with a man made object, softwares.

Spirits and God or gods are classified as supernatural, while computers science is classified as both natural science and social science depending on the field.So your comparison is inappropriate . Interpreting and explaining what's called supernatural requires something much more than your amateurish display.

A computer software is created by humans and by that we know it exists even though we can't touch it physically. It's not compulsory that it must be touched , measured , or even tasted like salt directly before it can installed in a machine.Those considerations are important to you because of what you're doing and denying; Your very poor attempt to prove as real something you think exist , but not bold enough to mention .

Is spirit or God created by humans just like a computer software? Can it be destroyed easily just like a software?

If you answer the above questions honestly it will help you see how you fumbled.

Budaatum patiently interacting with you has made you believe you had something goimg to brag about and insult everyone with.

See how stupid your articulation sounds.

I have not even once related software in a machine to soul or spirit. All I've been knocking into your thick skulls is that
1. There are REAL existences that are not TANGIBLE!
2. Anything that is TANGIBLE must have either a mass , a dimension or energy and can relate with time.
3. It is stupidity to require a Physical proof of that which is not tangible.
4. I gave other examples of INTANGIBLES that are nevertheless REAL
a. LOGIC
b. MATHEMATICS
c. INFORMATION
d. LIFE
5. Then I gave a challenge for you to find a physical means (measurement of mass, dimension, energy) by which you can measure these real intangibles like Software, Logic, Mathematica nd Information

Unfortunately, I see that Atheists are the most shallow human beings who think Softwares in a Machine is tangible.

No wonder, atheists reach nonsensical positions which is the manifestation of their shallow minds


Sorry, I am not to give pearls to Pigs.

Again 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 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?

jaephoenix:
How is it?
Software can be programmed and stored. That is tangibility. What else are you talking about?

This is not tangibility :

What is the shape or mass or energy of a software?

Anything that is tangible must have at least one of these three

jaephoenix:
Software is tangible.
What things exist that lack tangibility?

Software is not tangible!

Water in a bucket is tangible because with or without the bucket, the water remains tangible.

Not so with a software sir!

SIRTee15:
I also think Abu bakir and Aisha didn't feel guilty tearing off pages of the Qur'an because they knew majority of the Koran is lost anyway, so whatever they remove isn't going to change anything.

I also think aisha may have confessed to her father her long term suspicion that Muhammed sometimes fabricates Quranic verses for his convenience and not everything is from jubril.

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

With above facts, they felt no remorse mutilating the pages of Qur'an for their own convenience.

Islam was a perfect political tool in the hands of Muslim leaders.
You get soldiers willing to kill themselves in the name of Allah for your course.


Too bad, people believe in this nonsense

SIRTee15:
TenQ see as this one is fighting the truth. Denying the truth won't make it false.

Take this and argue with it ....

When informed that Zaid’s text was to receive official status, Ibn Masud reacted indifferently:

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (The Codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, p. 66 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

Muslims will rather hide information they don't want others to know. Unfortunately, it's too late now. Thanks to the Internet

gaskiyamagana:
Super story series what?

What happen to the mushaf of Mohammed, Abubakr and Uthman because even the Hafs Qur'an was not according to either the Qur'an of Mohammed or the Qur'an of Abubakr or the Qur'an of Uthman BUT from Recitations according to..., according to.., according to Hafs.

Why?

Why is the Isnad of your Quran doesn't lead to the Qur'an of Mohammed or Abubakr or Uthman : but is according to Recitations?

gaskiyamagana:
It was kept in the CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OF ISLAMISGUIDANCE, FOUNDED BY BY TENQ, WITH MAIN CAMPUS ON NAIRALAND RELIGION SECTION.

Your history of the compilation of the Qur'an doesn't add up.

This is the problem sir.

Is it untrue that there were at least three times the Qur'an was collected?

gaskiyamagana:
You see yourself and your scheme of tarnishing image of Islam. Hopefully, l have been able to silent you on versions of Quran of your invention in your school of ISLAMISGUIDANCE. I will be monitoring you and wherever you write about it, your failure here to make it available on net or bookstore, will be my reference.
Jump from here to another topic with which you have been PROGRAMED with your ANTI ISLAM ROBOTICAL data processing.

The problem is that you as Muslims still need to tell us exactly where the Qur'an of Mohammed was kept?


Is it untrue that the Qur'an it was compiled in the life time of Mohammed?

SIRTee15:
Aisha mutilated it

And it seems Abubakr hid it to produce his own version

jaephoenix:
Software is tangible.
What things exist that lack tangibility?

Software is tangible!?

And Mathematics
And Logic
And Information?

jaephoenix:
How is it?
Software can be programmed and stored. That is tangibility. What else are you talking about?

Khai!
Should you not even consult with people who should know?

SIRTee15:
Hmm I didn't even consider abubakar's angle.
You right, Aisha would not dare pull such move without backing of a powerful person.
That's why abubakar refused to consult the best reciters of his time such as ibn mosood to compile the Koran...instead he chose a small boy he could easily manipulate.
Ibn mosood was one of the reciters Muhammad recommended for those who wanted to memorise the Koran and already compiled his own Koran when abu ordered the compilation of the Koran.

The question is why didn't Abu seek counsel from ibn mosood? The answer is now clear. I'm sure his Koran contain verses of breast feeding adult and stoning of women.

Its pertinent to note ibn mosood rejected the uthman codex until his death. He said he will never abandon the Koran he leant from Muhammed himself to embrace that of Zaid who mohammed never rated as a great reciter.

The problem is that Muslims still need to tell us exactly where the Qur'an of Mohammed was kept.

Was it with Aisha?

jaephoenix:
I as an atheist don't insist on physical quantification
Again I ask, what is the aim of all these questions

Aim:
That some Things exist which are NOT tangible is the aim!

budaatum:
It would seem that you do not have the right decoder. If you had, you would not claim we agree on the bold.

I have told you that a fire alarm that goes off in a building is conveying information whether you know what the fire alarm is telling you or not. I also said that you would not claim a person speaking Hindi is not conveying information just because you don't understand Hindi. So how can you possibly claim that you must understand the data you are giving for it to be information?

Is everything you have written in this thread lack information if I don't understand a word you wrote?


I 100% agree that To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded.

To the transmitter, the string of text has information, unless the transmitter intentionally writes gibberish, which I credit you for not doing.


This is somehow, TenQ.

If the receiver Ignores or rejects or misinterprets the information it is given, then the receiver will receive no information. That, however, does not mean "The string of text is NO information".

You can write the above in perfect Hindi, and I who speaks no Hindi will not receive the information in your words. That does not therefore mean that there is no information in your words.


You are getting a lot warmer already, and I appreciate that you are.

You want to speak "ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver". I am not doing anything of the sort, even where computers are concerned. Please note.


[i]You do not determine only because you did not write the software. If you had written the software you would know that you and only you determine what information and how the information is passed to the computer, so long as you make the software you write tangible (readable, perceptible) to the computer).

To say otherwise is to claim that I determine what and how you write what you write here, which clearly is not the case. If it were the case, I would determine that you stop arguing with me and just agree with me, but I am certain you would flex muscle and tell me not to tell you what to write here!


If you write you sign language to a computer that is not configured to understand sign language, you computer will fail to understand the message you are trying to convey to it in sign language, and it would be as pointless as speaking Hindi to buda.


I agree that you information is Gibberish to the computer if your computer can not read sign language. That does not however mean that your sign language is gibberish. It just means your computer does not understand sign language and has no decoder to decode the information you fed it in sign language.


I agree that from the computer's framework, sign language will be gibberish to it. That does however mean that your sign language is gibberish. Just that you computer can not decode your sign language.


Yes. I can run Microsoft Word on a Mac. Google it if you don't know how!


From the point of view of the receiver, I agree. The Hindi speaker conveying information in real Hindi would however not agree that they are speaking gibberish.

And I am not buying your "Gibberish Hindi" nonsense! If you speak gibberish English to me I would just stop conversing with you!


It would be rather foolish of you to sign language to a computer that can not decode sign language.

If you had written this post in Hindi, you'd have wasted your time because it would be gibberish to me despite it likely not being gibberish to you who wrote it in Hindi.


I think you keep going on about this your "point of view of the Receiver" only because you are beginning to understand that there may be other points of view, like that of the information giver.

It is appreciated.


Lol!

If the computer does not understand sign language, I agree that the computer does not receive anything.

But if you write your software and compile it into the specific language the machine can decode, then not only will the computer be aware of the information you give it, it will also carry out any instruction that you coded into the software and fed to the machine.


This is the point where I now inform you that your definition of tangible is very narrow, as is your idea of "Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time".

Hopefully, you can decode all I have said so far, and comprehend the information therein, and considered the definitions of tangible that I posted for my Lord.

Now, I got a meeting to go to. I will respond to your other post when I am done.

I am wasting the time I dont have with you sir!

I guess only LordReed can speak some clarity into you