₦airaland Forum

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

. 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

StillDtruth:
Wrong! The same way you people can switch and claim that you are not talking about spirit or you are talking about spirit, is the same rigbt TenQ has in stating what he is talking about.

So if he says he has not mentioned spirit you.have to address him there.

But i an free to thnk that he is definitely talking about spirit and he can correct me if he wants to.

What is good for the goose, is good for anoher goose.

But I'm not atheist.

StillDtruth:
We are not!

Actually, he has gotten you all to say exactly everything we told you when you people were arguing that spirit does not exist.

And you.have said them making exactly the.same arguments we gave you.

So, TenQ laid a trap and you all walked into it confessing the very things you denied!

Good . So you admit he' has been lying he has not been talking about spirits indirectly.

You just came to expose his deception. Thank you every much for this and I hope he reads what you just said


Nobody fell into any trap, if we did,we wouldn't expose him

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

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

budaatum:
He's being disingenuous and dishonest I think, or perhaps he wants to convince us his God does not exist. He sure has given us enough evidence to presume it doesn't.

And even admitting unknowingly that his god was created by humans just like a software .

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

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

TenQ:
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?

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

The confusion with the word tangible is that it can be used both literally and figuratively to refer to things we can experience both within and outside of ourselves.

By touching it with the hand literally or by feeling or sensing it not with the hand..

We can't touch it but we know or sense it's there,.So it's tangible .

A software is" tangible" because we know or can sense it's there within our device,if not nothing happens.

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

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.

TenQ:
Go take care of yourself!

Your advice isn't needed. Use it yourself

StillDtruth:
Were you not corrected that no one from our side made that claim?

Does the thread not show that you are the one who made ithat claim? Then you are the one to answer it , not us!

. Continue to lie to yourself that you didn't define spirit and be happy with that.

TenQ:
See the Ignorant donkey opening mouth like basket spewing rubbish he knows NOTHING about.
He never programmed once in his life and he wouldn't ask questions or keep his mouth shut!

Maybe the person who brought you up is donkey and that's why you're quick to insult others who haven't insulted you first

We're discussing "A" here but you came to talk "Z" and without any provocation from me you starting insulting me and think you're sane? Something really must be wrong with you.


Go and Google "the five whys of insanity" to understand yourself better. Your behaviour is symptomatic of something really bad you need to know and get cured before it becomes to late.

There's absolutely nothing in computer sciences that informs anyone that the prerequisite for understanding what's spirits is a knowledge computer of softwares , or is it
in your Bible you read that nonsense from ?

You're just lieing to yourself and believing that with the brain dead JW member hailing you from the sidelines and you're feeling funky. Yeye.

budaatum:
I'm going to read further, Triple, to see if they bothered to answer this brilliant question of yours.

They won't answer it . I'm very sure of that.

You can already see they're only interested in having theirs answered and not those of others.

TenQ:
I didn't know you were this dumb: tell me just one place I have mentioned the word God on this thread!

My friend shut up with your very low IQ.

You're derailing the thread by bringing in what's irrelevant nonsense.
if you won't define spirit or talk about God which is the main reason this thread was created then take your software explanations to the right section

Examples or analogies are meant for making definitions or explanations more clearer. If you won't define anything but continue to use something as an analogy for what you refuse to define , then you're engaged in self deception .And that's very unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Christian.


You want to go through the backdoor ,using a computer software ,to prove your God and you think everyone is as dumb as you not to notice. Nonsense!

TenQ:
True!

Correct! We actually Load in into the memory of the machine and it is real because it does exactly as it was designed to function.

The Question was:
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure or Quantify the Software WITHIN a Machine by ANY Physical means.
What Physical thing would you want to measure as the software characteristics: its Mass, Dimension, Energy or Time ?



The Question was:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
How would you determine its physical quantification? What Physical properties will suffice: is it Mass, Dimension, Energy or Time ?

It is NOT wisdom to insist of physical quantification of a software before we conclude that an AI machine is run by a software. The reason is because even though a software existence is real within a machine, it cannot be physically proved.


The Question was:
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?
There is no known method of determining the presence of a software within either the CPU or RAM of HDD of a machine without the use of other softwares. We use tools such as the Disassembler to view the Hex codes within a storage or processing register of the machine

Apart from tools,there are alternatives to knowing something. Ask a doctor to know that

See, a software is not the same as your God. Stop fooling yourself

Aemmyjah:
Ask your atheists who claim they can't accept someone existence they can't see

I don't own atheists. They can speak for themselves. So ask them directly yourself.

Aemmyjah:
1. 😂... Atheist contradicting atheist

2. So you agree that we can accept the existence of something by it's effect, even if we cannot see it or hear it shey

You don't even feel comfortable answering these simple questions

I'm not an atheist please . And where's the contradiction. Show it

2. But the atheist have accepted that. Are you blind not to see it

3. Please stop projecting. It's you who don't feel comfortable with my answers

LordReed:
Again you are the dishonest coward who doesn't want his belief critiqued that's why you dishonestly answered. It should be clear to any one observing that you and the others like you are nothing but dishonest and stupid imbeciles.

It's not only that he doesn't want his beliefs critiqued, but also that he is very clueless about what he has been trying to explain and because of that he cannot see how he has been fumbling with it.

TenQ:
Why are you this elusive?

Me elusive? Your questions have been answered already, by me and some others,but you're unwilling to accept it or even understand it because you convinced yourself before asking them that they can't be answered .

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?

Ok . I will sacrifice my time again to answer it directly in a way you can understand . But if after then you still don't accept my answers as correct,then please answer it yourself since you alone know the correct thing.

1. It's not a prove it doesn't exist. But the person who says it, the existence ,exist has the onerous task of finding a way of demonstrating to others how it exist .
2. I know the software inside an AI is real because of the visible effects it produces

3. Yes . We can do that indirectly through its features, some of which are, it's portability, flexibility, reliability , functionality etc


4. Yes it's wisdom so you aren't cheated by the person selling the machine that host the software. He just might be selling you a fake
And I just explained how it can be done indirectly. You don't need to see the software physically to know it's there but by interacting with it through usage .

5. I don't need to repeat myself. I have answered it up there. If you know how tests are carried to determine if someone is infected with something then you won't be asking all these kindergarten questions.

Now that I answered your questions, would you be humble enough to respond in kind by answering it correctly for me if you think I didn't answer them correctly?

Otherwise, admit that you are a bunch of good for nothing noise makers!

The above is actually meant for you,not me. FYI, I'm not an atheist. I don't need to be one to question you. Do I?

TenQ:
Then answer my questions about that which everyone can deduce the answers and it's logical conclusions.

Which questions exactly?

If you cannot understand how a software of an AI machine is, it is impossible to understand how a spirit is

Not true.

I understand how a software of an AI machine is . I don't know why you assume I don't.

It's you who has been struggling to make others understand how the software of an AI is similar to spirit. The blame is yours not mine. The AI software produces effects everyone can observe.

Can you tell what observable effects or effect spirit produces ? If doesn't, then how to you convince others it exist .

TenQ:
Anyone that cannot understand that non-tangible things can be real but not measurable cannot understand why the soul or spirit is tangible but cannot be physically measured.

What's the actual nature of this spirit or soul you keeping talking about?

How did you come to perceive it yourself to know it's real?

This is why atheists demand a physical proof for what is not physically demonstratable and they keep on braying like donkeys as if what they say makes any sense.

Thus I give a Software in an AI robot analogy.

If it cannot be seen or physically demonstrated, then don't blame anyone who says it doesn't it.

This is why they would NEVER answer the question as it betrays their STUPIDITY!

Please drop the insult. You're acting too defensively now. Find a more better way to describe what spirit is first. Your software analogy makes perfect sense to you probably because you have a direct experience of what you're talking about. But for others who have no such experience,, nothing you say will make any sense .

TenQ:
I did not once define what a spirit nor soul is!

Then what have you been trying to describe or hint at with your use of the software analogy.?

StillDtruth:
"Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding (or pretence in lack og understanding) disbelief or ignorance."
W. Clement Stone

I have explained it, and called for a valid challenge of my definition but every atheist has runs away. Understandably, anyway!

You definition doesn't describe anything tangible.

TenQ:
Have a nice day!

You too .

See, I also subscribe to what you trying to call spirit. But the difference between you and me is the definition and the explanation of what it's.


A popular author once said that if you claim to know something but struggle to explain it clearly and simply enough for everyone to understand it, then you don't know it .

TenQ:
Please do not waste my time?
If you don't understand the workings of simple softwares , how can you comprehend spiritual things.

Again :
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?


Otherwise, let's call it a day!

Hehehe

You just said you are yet to claim a software is spirit. Now, if I don't understand the workings of a software how can I understand spiritual things?. Talk of wasting another person's time with some dishonesty 😂

Please go back to my previous response .I modified it to answer your question on measurement of dimensions, mass ,time etc

TenQ:
1. Wrong Question: No one ever has claimed that a software is a Spirit!
2. Non tangible (your words not mine) imply out of the league of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time.

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?


Firstly,
I am discussing what is known (Software) and not yet spirits or soul.

I think you should answer my question since I was the one to bring it out.
1. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
2. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?
3. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?

You're already assuming.

The topic has to do with spirit which you're yet to describe what actually it is, and the next thing you brought in a software into the discussion.

To what end I ask?

Modified. Not been able to measured in terms of mass dimension etc neither proves something exist nor doesn't exist

This thread is fun to read.

@ TenQ


The definition for non physical that we have says it has to do with the mind ,spirit or non tangible

So, my question for you is this,

is a computer software a mental phenomenon or spirit ?

You don't deposit money

danilo16:
This is the correct version. Fulfilling this is what is called meeting the bail condition. In several instances, you hear that someone is granted bail but failed to meet the conditions. The money is actually deposited with the court registry (in the case where money is the only condition)

Not true. No money is deposited in any court registry.

ceejay80s:
Bail is different from surety
U will bail urself and bring surety of like some Incase u disappear

No. You can't bail yourself. That only happens in Nigerian police stations where you're forced to pay money for bail.

Kobojunkie:
1. So, you do agree then that once that marriage license is issued or the ceremonials are taken care of, what one has is marriage — the product —regardless of what comes afterward? Case closed then!

You have come again. Where did I disagree please. And why should I not know that? I don't accept the product description of it,only marriage will do me.You make it seem like something that can be bought from a store

2. Oi Vey! One moment you pretend you respect the fact that all marriages are unique as they are and are valid even at that, the next moment you come up suggesting that it is all based on experience. what the heck is up with you? Make up your fking mind for Pete's sake!

The above wayward talk has nothing to do with what I discussed here. You're hallucinating. Provide evidence from what I said before now to prove I said all of that above, or you shut up. You're shamelessly lying everywhere to win an argument

3. The subject of this conversation is the fact that more and more are opting out of the marriage agreement and choosing to remain single or cohabit instead. By improving benefits available to the married... reduced taxation for instance, housing vouchers for the married, child-tax credit for the marriage, equal division of marriage property in the case of divorce, alimony, and all of that good stuff, you go a long way to encourage individuals to consider marriage than the alternatives. This is already been used in other places and proven to be of value.

The "more and more" is in your head. You haven't provided anything to support your believe. The link you shared says the "more and more" in Nigeria is not significant enough compared to the "more and more going into it everywhere in Nigeria
Those opting out of it in Nigeria are less than 1 % of the population. How can that be a problem ?
Your recommendation above is not guaranteed to make the marriage last or enjoying for the couples.In fact it can make it boring and tensed, with some partners focusing their attention more on what they stand to gain instead of what they should be contributing to make it work.

4. Look, abandon this talk cause you seem to have an agenda I am altogether not the least bit interested in as it is clear you have a hard time staying on time and would rather ramble on about how trying marriage is the way to know marriage when even the 5-year-old here with basic social-emotional learning (SEL) experience has figured out these things..

I don't have any agenda. It's really annoying listening to people like you who have no single experience on the matter trying to offer advice on something they should just shut it until they have their own experience.

I won't be replying to the link as promised.I have summarized what I intended to say up there. Read it again.

The study is not a valid one. You obviously don't know what constitute a valid research. You just went online and Google something and dump it here without reading it very well yourself.

The author of the article made it clear that the rising cases in Nigeria can not be compared to what is happening in Europe or the US . You were blind to that and introduced it to me with the statement "here in Nigeria also "as if the situation is the same.
You ignored the information which says that more than 70 percent are married and still stay married. Even the divorced ones sometimes reconcile and return back to the marriage they abandon.

You're focused only on information which support what you want to believe about marriages , while ignoring the ones which proves you wrong.

Kobojunkie:
Look, here, no two marriages have ever been shown to be the same and never will. Why? Because marriage is made up of two unique individuals — different experiences, nurture, temperaments, etc.

Your assumptions about me and biases against the institution of marriage is really working against you .

Where did I even suggest that every marriage is the same for you to reply me with the above flippant talk?

Is it that you have problem understanding what you read, or using that to escape answering directly to what you have no answer to? You're notorious for doing this on this board nearly every time, and this is not the first time with me.

Your mistake is attempting to wrap marriages as if they are according to the idea you have in your head there. You only waste your time talking to someone like me about such things. So long as the marriage certificate is signed/formalities are carried out, every marriage out there is as valid a marriage as your very own marriage. Kapisch!

And again where did I say or suggest every marriages out there is not valid . You really have a problem.
Yes ,I know that I have been wasting my time talking to you because not only are you not married to discuss this (this not to mock you in any way. I wish you to get married) , you're also a well known misogamist ,a marriage hater ,who's deluded to believe that an imaginary God has placed a curse on all marriages and for that no one should venture into it. Is that not what you repeat like a bot all the time here? Yes.

2. I focus on the process of the union because that is the only element of marriage that can be controlled. Marriage is not meant to be a jail; Divorce is a legal and logical out of marriage. I don't see a reason why I should spend time trying to force people to stay in a union that no longer makes sense to time. By focusing on making marriage attractive and more beneficial, I believe it is possible to not only get more people to choose marriage but also let them see that marriage does not need to turn out for the worst for any of the partners even if it ends in a divorce. Marriage/divorce being a win-win is better than what marriage is right now,

Then please explain how an improvement on the process will make it attractive, beneficial and successful after, without the couples doing anything? You won't answer. I'm sure of that.
Both the process and what it leads to complement each other ,but the goal or the end is the most important area to focus on. Where are your going with the marriage? If you don't know that, then you surely go nowhere. It's as simple as that.


Please go get married first even if with a random stranger so you have some
experience of your own and come back later to advise people from what you learnt.

You have been overreaching yourself on a topic you should have kept quiet already and learn from others experienced in it.

I will reply later to the link you replied me with concerning rising cases of divorce in Nigeria,and end the conversation immediately after that.