Did you ask Him na akakataa? Don't use assumption katika majibu yako kama facts. Unayo haki ya kuweka opinion lakini huna haki ya kufanya opinion kuwa empirical fact. Labda utupe ushaidi wa opinions zako na tuzipime kama ni watertight.Speaking of mungu mwenye uwezo wote, ukiwamo wa kuwapa afya njema viumbe vyake wote, na upendo wote.
Kwa nini awabanie?
Kwa nini asiwape afya njema viumbe wake wote wakati wote?
nguzo ya umeme inaonekana yenyewe...Hilo nimekuelewa.
Nikakuuliza swali ambalo hujalijibu.
Kitu gani kinaonekana chenyewe na siyo effect tu?
Bingo. So you do believe, don't you?Inherently I do not have a problem with faith.
As you have noted, assumption is a face of faith, and as I have noted, it is irrational to repudiate all forms of faith.
Only a blatant liar or a complete ignoramus can tell you that he repudiate faith completely, for reasons given above.
Is it irrational to plan for tomorrow on the faith that the sun will rise and you will not die suddenly in your sleep?
No.
To the contrary, under normal circumstances, it is irrational not to plan for tomorrow due to the fear that the sun will not rise or that one will die in ones sleep.
So the assumption that I am.against faith per se, is erroneous at best. Every human must engage in a form of faith in one form or another. Just walking is an act of faith. By walking, one professes the faith that the ground will not give in under his weight, which is not a total impossibility. Floridians are known to have the earth open up and swallow whole houses.
So the auestion then.becomes, how much faith, in what, and by which principles?
Here is where some choose to have total faith in an invisible god while others choose to have only a minimal amountnof faith based on.rationality and gradually converge towards knowledge.
vipi kuhusiana na assumptions haziruhusiwi?
Bingo. So you do believe, don't you?
That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?I am allergic to belief.
I would rather know, thank you very much.
nguzo ya umeme inaonekana yenyewe...
The person committed perjury or may be "Assumptions = Faith".That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?
That is the "minimal amount of faith", are you as well allergic to that?
Wrong, nguzo ya umeme haionekani yenyewe.
Wewe unaona photons zinazosafiri kutoka kwenye nguzo ya umeme na kufika kwenye macho yako. Unaiona nguzo ya umeme si kama ilivyo sasa, bali kama ilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka.
Kama mtu anaweza kwenda kwa kasi sana, anaweza kwenda kwenye nguzo ya umeme akaiondoa kabla ya particles zinazokuonyesha nguzo ya umeme ilipo hazijakufikia machoni, nguzo ya umeme isiendelee kuwapo, lakini wewe ukaona ipo.
To illustrate better this example, I will use the sun.
Tunapoangalia jua, hatulioni kama lilivyo sasa, bali kama lilivyokuwa dakika nane na sekunde ishirini zilizopita. Kwa maana huo ndio muda ambao mwanga unatumia kusafiri kutoka kwenye jua mpaka duniani kwenye macho yetu.
Kwa hiyo, jua likizimika ghafla sasa hivi, hatutajua kwamba jua limezimika mpaka zipite dakika nane na sekunde ishirini.
Hatuoni vitu kama vilivyo directly, tunaona effect ya vitu hivyo inavyotufikia kwa photons zinazosafiri kwa speed ya mwanga.
Basic relativity theory.
kwa hiyo kwa hiyo mantiki unataka kusema hakuna kitu ambacho hakionekani? ila kipo ambacho hakijulikani?
Hiyo mantiki yako sijui imekaa vipi? au yenyewe haitegemei na umbali wa muangaliaji na kitu halisi kilipo? kwa mantiki yako hiyo hata tukiwa tunaangalia mpira uwanja wa Taifa inamaana kuna wengine wanaanza kuona wengine wanafuata?Define kuonekana.
Nilichokwambia hapo ni kwamba, kwa sababu mwanga unasafiri kwa speed maalum, na kwa kuwa tunaona kwa photons kugota machoni mwetu kutoka kwa vitu vilivyo sehemu tofauti na tulipo, habari nzima ya kuona kitu directly ni ndoto tu.
Utakiona kitu kama kilivyokuwa hapo photons zilipotoka kwenye hicho kitu, huwezi kukiona kitu kama kilivyo sasa hivi kwa sababu that would violate the speed of light.
Kwa hiyo kila kitu kinaonekana effect yake tu, si kitu halisi.
Hiyo mantiki yako sijui imekaa vipi? au yenyewe haitegemei na umbali wa muangaliaji na kitu halisi kilipo? kwa mantiki yako hiyo hata tukiwa tunaangalia mpira uwanja wa Taifa inamaana kuna wengine wanaanza kuona wengine wanafuata?
nilikuwa nataka nijue je vitu kama O[SUB]2[/SUB] , upepo na vyenyewe vinaonekana? na ile nguvu inayosafiri kutoka kwenye remote control mpaka kwenye TV na yenyewe inaonekana kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako...
Hiyo Einstein's relativity nilishasoma hiyoKila kitu kinachoonekana kwa macho, kinaonekana kwa kufuata limit ya speed of light, na hivyo hakiwezi kuonekana directly, unaona effect yake tu.
Kuonekana directly maana yake ni kuona vitu instantaneously, which violates the speed of light limit.
Ushasoma Einstein's relativity?
Sababu inayokufanya ushangae ni kutokana na ukweli kwamba unafikiri katika large scale framework na ku neglect the real granularity of spacetime.
Hiyo Einstein's relativity nilishasoma hiyo
nimeuliza vitu ambavyo havionekani hata kwa hiyo mantiki vyenyewe tunasemaje?
Hiyo mantiki yote nimeipata ya kuelezea kwamba hakuna tunachoona direct na nimeelewa kwa kutolea mfano wa hivi vitu ambavyo hudhaniwa tunaona direct kumbe hatuoni direct ndio umetoa mfano wa Mwanga wa jua, kwamba tunauona baada ya dakika kadhaa...Nina mashaka kama umesoma, ama kama umesoma umeelewa, au kama ulielewa bado unakumbuka relativity.
Halafu swali lako hapa linaonyesha hata mimi hujanielewa, na labda huwezi kunielewa.
Nilichokwambia ni kimsingi kwamba hakuna kinachoonekana directly, tunaona effects tu. Nimeelezea vizuri habari za photon, speed of.light and why direct observation.is impossible due to the speed of light limit.
Hapo hapo unaniuliza upepo, O2 na infrared inayitoka kwenye remote inaonekana?
Mimi nakwambia tai zangu zote ni za bluu, sina tai nyekundu.
Wewe unaniyliza "hata tai zako za kwendea kazini ni nyekundu?".
Nishakwambia sina tai nyekundu, kwa nini unauliza kama tai za kazini ni nyekundu?
Nishakwambia hakuna kinachoonekana directly, kila tunachoona tunaona effect tu, kwa sababu nikizozitaja hapo juu.
Halafu wewe bado unaniuliza kama upepo , O2 na infrared vinaonekana!
Hiyo mantiki yote nimeipata ya kuelezea kwamba hakuna tunachoona direct na nimeelewa kwa kutolea mfano wa hivi vitu ambavyo hudhaniwa tunaona direct kumbe hatuoni direct ndio umetoa mfano wa Mwanga wa jua, kwamba tunauona baada ya dakika kadhaa...
sasa nafikiri hatuelewani, wewe umenielezea kwa concept ya hivi vitu ambavyo kiuhalisia tunaviona, sasa ndio najiuliza inamaana hakuna vitu ambavyo havionekani? kwa kutumia hiyo hiyo concept yako... kwa sababu uliniuliza kitu gani ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, nikakwambia nguzo ya umeme inaonekana we ukaniambia hapana nguzo ya umeme hauioni yenyewe ninachoona ni particle ukasema kama nikiiona yenyewe nitakuwa nime violate speed of light...
ukasema hakuna kitu ambacho kinaonekana chenyewe, sasa nikaanza kuwaza vitu vingine, ndio maana najiuliza je ambavyo havionekani kama hivyo nilivyokwambia vyenyewe inakuwaje, maana ulichoelezea ni hivi unavyosema hatuoni direct
Ngoja nikufumbue macho kidogo:
1. Mgonjwa "a" wa Saratani ya ubongo, katibiwa na Doctor "q" akapona Saratani.
2. Mgonjwa "b" wa Saratani ya ubongo, katibiwa na Doctor "q" akafa kwasababu ya Saratani ya ubongo.
3. Kama dawa ndio inaponya Saratani, KWANINI MGONJWA "b" hakupona baada ya kutibiwa na Doctor "q"?
1. You don't have to accommodate something which is not provable according to your fallacy, in contrast, now FAITH is PART OF SCIENCE.I can barely tolerate it for practical reasons linked to it's current inescapable nature as pointed above. That is, in order to eradicate it, one has to barely accommodate it, and converge towards it's gradual eradication methodically.
Experimentation, peer review and observation in a corrective and critically reflective culture (the opposite of faith) would eventually converge towards less belief and more knowledge.
That is how science advances.
I can see that..The person committed perjury or may be "Assumptions = Faith".