Hii ndiyo “CV” ya Shetani. Hafai kuajiriwa popote!

[Setfree]

You have not resolved the problem of evil. If there is an all knowing, all capable and all loving God, why did that God create a world with even the potential to habe evil? Your answer to this question is very wanting.

The perennial "problem of evil" poses a profound philosophical challenge to theism, and the specific question regarding why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God would create a world with the potential for evil requires a nuanced engagement with metaphysical, moral, and theological frameworks.

To begin, the assumption underlying the critique is that the existence of evil, or even the potential thereof, is irreconcilable with a perfect God. However, this presupposes that the divine intention in creation was to instantiate a world devoid of moral risk. Classical theism posits that God’s purposes transcend human-centric conceptions of utopian existence; the created order is not merely a tableau for human comfort but a milieu for the actualization of greater goods—goods that may necessitate the possibility of evil as their corollary.

Central to this discussion is the value of free will, a concept intrinsic to many theistic responses. For human beings to possess genuine moral agency, they must be endowed with the capacity to choose between good and evil. A world without the potential for evil would necessarily be one in which moral decisions are precluded, rendering virtues such as love, courage, and justice hollow, as they cannot exist apart from the possibility of their negation. Love, for instance, is meaningful precisely because it is freely given, not coerced. Thus, the potential for evil is not an imperfection in creation but a requisite for a higher-order good: the cultivation of authentic moral agents.

Moreover, the critique often overlooks the eschatological dimension of theistic belief. The existence of evil and suffering is interpreted not as an end in itself but as a transient aspect of a broader teleological narrative that culminates in the ultimate realization of divine justice and goodness. Within this framework, temporal suffering and moral failures are subsumed into a redemptive arc that achieves purposes beyond immediate comprehension. From this perspective, God’s allowance of evil is not indicative of indifference or impotence but of a profound commitment to the preservation of freedom and the orchestration of a greater good that transcends temporal existence.

It is also worth addressing the epistemic humility required when contemplating divine purposes. The finite human intellect is ill-equipped to apprehend the totality of God's motives or the full implications of His creative decisions. To demand a resolution that satisfies human understanding risks conflating divine omniscience with human logic, thereby imposing anthropocentric constraints on the infinite.

Finally, the charge that the theistic response is "wanting" may stem from an expectation of evidentiary proof akin to empirical sciences, an expectation misaligned with the nature of metaphysical inquiry. The theodical endeavor is not to eliminate every shadow of doubt but to present a coherent framework that aligns with theistic presuppositions and experiential realities. Within this framework, the coexistence of God and evil is not a logical impossibility but a profound mystery intertwined with the divine economy of creation and redemption. Prof. Kiranga, is my response adequately elucidated, or are there elements that warrant additional explanation for better comprehension???

 

[Setfree]

hawatoi sababu zenye mashiko

Hahaa

 

[Kiranga]

The perennial "problem of evil" poses a profound philosophical challenge to theism, and the specific question regarding why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God would create a world with the potential for evil requires a nuanced engagement with metaphysical, moral, and theological frameworks.

To begin, the assumption underlying the critique is that the existence of evil, or even the potential thereof, is irreconcilable with a perfect God. However, this presupposes that the divine intention in creation was to instantiate a world devoid of moral risk. Classical theism posits that God’s purposes transcend human-centric conceptions of utopian existence; the created order is not merely a tableau for human comfort but a milieu for the actualization of greater goods—goods that may necessitate the possibility of evil as their corollary.

Central to this discussion is the value of free will, a concept intrinsic to many theistic responses. For human beings to possess genuine moral agency, they must be endowed with the capacity to choose between good and evil. A world without the potential for evil would necessarily be one in which moral decisions are precluded, rendering virtues such as love, courage, and justice hollow, as they cannot exist apart from the possibility of their negation. Love, for instance, is meaningful precisely because it is freely given, not coerced. Thus, the potential for evil is not an imperfection in creation but a requisite for a higher-order good: the cultivation of authentic moral agents.

Moreover, the critique often overlooks the eschatological dimension of theistic belief. The existence of evil and suffering is interpreted not as an end in itself but as a transient aspect of a broader teleological narrative that culminates in the ultimate realization of divine justice and goodness. Within this framework, temporal suffering and moral failures are subsumed into a redemptive arc that achieves purposes beyond immediate comprehension. From this perspective, God’s allowance of evil is not indicative of indifference or impotence but of a profound commitment to the preservation of freedom and the orchestration of a greater good that transcends temporal existence.

It is also worth addressing the epistemic humility required when contemplating divine purposes. The finite human intellect is ill-equipped to apprehend the totality of God's motives or the full implications of His creative decisions. To demand a resolution that satisfies human understanding risks conflating divine omniscience with human logic, thereby imposing anthropocentric constraints on the infinite.

Finally, the charge that the theistic response is "wanting" may stem from an expectation of evidentiary proof akin to empirical sciences, an expectation misaligned with the nature of metaphysical inquiry. The theodical endeavor is not to eliminate every shadow of doubt but to present a coherent framework that aligns with theistic presuppositions and experiential realities. Within this framework, the coexistence of God and evil is not a logical impossibility but a profound mystery intertwined with the divine economy of creation and redemption. Prof. Kiranga, is my response adequately elucidated, or are there elements that warrant additional explanation for better comprehension???

You cannot reconcile a God that is omniscient, onmipotent and omnibenevolent who creates a world in which evil is possible.

This is a simple logical contradiction that exposes the idea of the existence of such a God as basic human fiction.

 

[Mshana Jr]

Je, wajua kuwa Shetani naye ana amri zake? Ziko 11

The first one imply much better "Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked"

www.jamiiforums.com

 

[Setfree]

Let me break it down with a nice illustration, because it seems you are not able to understand the flow, either that, or you are just deciding to crusade for your faith with no regard to logic.

View attachment 3197965

Thank you Prof. Kiranga for sharing the illustration. Let me craft a reasoned response that acknowledges the flow of logic in the chart while addressing the critique. Your illustration provides a clear and systematic exposition of the Epicurean Paradox, which has been a cornerstone of philosophical debates about theodicy for centuries. While it raises compelling points, there are aspects where its logic may oversimplify or misunderstand the theistic framework, particularly regarding the interplay between divine attributes, free will, and the nature of evil.

1. On God's Capability and Knowledge
The paradox assumes that God's omnipotence entails not only the ability to eliminate evil but also the necessity to do so. However, omnipotence does not imply the obligation to exercise power in every conceivable way. Instead, divine omnipotence is understood within the constraints of divine wisdom and purpose. God's allowance of evil may serve higher-order goods, such as the cultivation of virtues or the preservation of free will, which cannot exist in a deterministic universe devoid of moral risk.

Furthermore, omniscience does not negate the allowance of evil but rather encompasses the foreknowledge of how evil might be used for ultimate good. The paradox presupposes that a morally perfect being would necessarily prioritize the immediate eradication of evil, but this ignores the possibility that suffering and evil may have redemptive or instructive roles within God's overarching plan.

2. On God's Goodness
The chart suggests that permitting evil is incompatible with divine goodness. Yet, goodness in a theistic sense is not reducible to the prevention of suffering. A good and loving God might allow temporary suffering to achieve greater ultimate goods. For instance, pain often precedes healing, and struggle often precedes growth. If moral freedom and genuine relationships with the Creator are among God's aims, then the possibility of evil becomes a necessary condition for achieving these goods.

3. Could God Have Created a World Without Evil?​

The question of whether God could have created a universe with free will but without evil is addressed in the paradox as though the answer is self-evidently "yes." However, this presumes that free will could exist without the real possibility of choosing evil, which is philosophically contentious. If free will is to be meaningful, it must entail the capacity to reject the good. A "free" world without the potential for evil would, in essence, be a world of automata, not morally responsible agents.

4. The Role of Testing and Satan​

The suggestion that testing is unnecessary because an all-knowing God would already know the outcomes assumes that testing is solely for God's benefit. Theistic traditions often frame tests not as mechanisms for divine discovery but as opportunities for human growth, refinement, and the demonstration of faith. Similarly, the existence of Satan within these frameworks is often understood as part of the cosmic moral drama in which human beings are active participants rather than passive subjects.

Finally, let me say that the paradox presumes a reductionist view of divine attributes and human existence. While the questions it raises are important, the answers depend on the philosophical framework one adopts. Theism does not deny the existence of evil but frames it within a broader narrative of free will, moral development, and eschatological resolution.

 

[Setfree]

You cannot reconcile a God that is omniscient, onmipotent and omnibenevolent who creates a world in which evil is possible.

This is a simple logical contradiction that exposes the idea of the existence of such a God as basic human fiction.

Isaiah 55:8-9 says:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

This verse underscores the idea that human logic and understanding are limited in comparison to God's infinite wisdom. While the problem of evil may appear as a logical contradiction to human reasoning, it emphasizes that God's purposes and ways transcend human comprehension.

 

[Kiranga]

Isaiah 55:8-9 says:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

This verse underscores the idea that human logic and understanding are limited in comparison to God's infinite wisdom. While the problem of evil may appear as a logical contradiction to human reasoning, it emphasizes that God's purposes and ways transcend human comprehension.

All these are matters of faith, you can believe whatever you want, in fact I defend your human and constitutional right to do so, but the fact is yiu have not proved God exists.

The problem of evil still contradicts the existence of that God and your explanation further shows that God is a basic human fiction.

In fact, if that God existed it would be so obvious to everyone that this very exchange would nit be necessary if not possible.

This very discussion is evidence that your God does not exist.

If that God existed, defending that existence would not be necessary.

 

[Setfree]

All these are matters of faith, you can believe whatever you want, in fact I defend your human and constitutional right to do so, but the fact is yiu have not proved God exists.

The problem of evil still contradicts the existence of that God and your explanation further shows that God is a basic human fiction.

In fact, if that God existed it would be so obvious to everyone that this very exchange would nit be necessary if not possible.

This very discussion is evidence that your God does not exist.

If that God existed, defending that existence would not be necessary.

The presence of suffering and the seeming silence of God in our world does not necessarily negate His existence, but rather speaks to the complexity of divine justice and human free will. The absence of immediate, undeniable evidence does not render God's existence invalid; it simply reflects a reality where faith, choice, and divine mystery remain intertwined. Rest assured, the day is coming when every eye shall behold the Lord, and His truth will be made plain to all. "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen.” — Revelation 1:7

 

[Kiranga]

The presence of suffering and the seeming silence of God in our world does not necessarily negate His existence, but rather speaks to the complexity of divine justice and human free will. The absence of immediate, undeniable evidence does not render God's existence invalid; it simply reflects a reality where faith, choice, and divine mystery remain intertwined. Rest assured, the day is coming when every eye shall behold the Lord, and His truth will be made plain to all. "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen.” — Revelation 1:7

How do you prove that there is suffering because God exists and he allowed it, and not because God does not exist and therefore the natural world does not care about suffering?

 

[Rabbon]

Shetani baba wa UONGO na Kila UOVU duniani.

 

[run CMD]

Ongeza hapo alitupwa kwenye ujirani na dunia 1914

 

[Setfree]

KWELI

 

[Mstoiki]

🤔🤔🤔

Thought you feel my words!!

Do you think these stuffs make any true sense?

 

[Mstoiki]

ibn Kama una Chochote unachokijua juu ya maswali haya tunaomba elimu tafadhari,

Hapana mimi sijui, ila kama kuna mtu anajua niko tayari kujuzwa.

Infact hakuna anayejua chochote kuhusu asili ya ulimwengu na Asili ya binadamu.

Kila mtu amejikuta tu ndani ya ulimwengu ambao ulishakuwepo tayari - Yaani hatujui hata ulimwengu ulipotokea.

Anayedai kwamba anajua chanzo cha ulimwengu ajibu maswali tunayomuuliza.

Anayesema kuna Mungu atuelezee kwa kina amejulia wapi hayo!!

Anayesema hakuna Mungu atuelezee kwa kina amejulia wapi hayo!!

Ninavyokutana na watu wanaoclaim wanayajua haya kama hivi ndipo napata nafasi ya kuuliza ili nipate kuyajua nisiyoyajua.

Sasa wanaporuka ruka na kukwepa maswali yangu, Inapatana na akili yangu kwamba haya mabo wanayabunubuni tu kwenye vichwa vyao.

 

[Setfree]

Hapana mimi sijui, ila kama kuna mtu anajua niko tayari kujuzwa.

Infact hakuna anayejua chochote kuhusu asili ya ulimwengu na Asili ya binadamu.

Kila mtu amejikuta tu ndani ya ulimwengu ambao ulishakuwepo tayari - Yaani hatujui hata ulimwengu ulipotokea.

Anayedai kwamba anajua chanzo cha ulimwengu ajibu maswali tunayomuuliza.

Anayesema kuna Mungu atuelezee kwa kina amejulia wapi hayo!!

Anayesema hakuna Mungu atuelezee kwa kina amejulia wapi hayo!!

Ninavyokutana na watu wanaoclaim wanayajua haya kama hivi ndipo napata nafasi ya kuuliza ili nipate kuyajua nisiyoyajua.

Sasa wanaporuka ruka na kukwepa maswali yangu, Inapatana na akili yangu kwamba haya mabo wanayabunubuni tu kwenye vichwa vyao.

Mkuu, hatubunibuni, tuna uhakika na tunachosema: Mungu yupo 100%.
Ngoja, nikipata muda ntaijibu hoja yako hiyo.

 

[Mstoiki]

Mkuu, hatubunibuni, tuna uhakika na tunachosema: Mungu yupo 100%.
Ngoja, nikipata muda ntaijibu hoja yako hiyo.

Haya ni maelezo ya kukimbia!!

 

[Setfree]

Infact hakuna anayejua chochote kuhusu asili ya ulimwengu na Asili ya binadamu.

Kila mtu amejikuta tu ndani ya ulimwengu ambao ulishakuwepo tayari - Yaani hatujui hata ulimwengu ulipotokea.

Kutokujua kitu haina maana kwamba hakuna anayejua. Ni kweli mwanadamu kwa akili zake peke yake hawezi kuelewa kila jambo, lakini Muumba wa ulimwengu ametupa ufunuo wake. ‘Hapo mwanzo Mungu aliziumba mbingu na nchi’ (Mwanzo 1:1). Ulimwengu haukujitokeza wenyewe, bali uliumbwa na Mungu aliye na hekima kuu. Na kuhusu asili ya binadamu, imeandikwa: ‘Bwana Mungu akamfanya mtu kwa mavumbi ya ardhi, akampulizia puani pumzi ya uhai, mtu akawa nafsi hai’ (Mwanzo 2:7). Ukweli ndio huo, ila sio kila mtu anakubali kuuona.

 

[Smotor]

Mkuu, hatubunibuni, tuna uhakika na tunachosema: Mungu yupo 100%.
Ngoja, nikipata muda ntaijibu hoja yako hiyo.

Unaposema unauhakika kwa 100% means unaweza kuthibitisha.

Je utaweza kuthibitisha kwamba Mungu yupo?

 

[Setfree]

Unaposema unauhakika kwa 100% means unaweza kuthibitisha.

Je utaweza kuthibitisha kwamba Mungu yupo?

Kuna uthibitisho mwingi sana unaoonyesha Mungu yupo.
Ngoja nikutajie baadhi ya evidences:
1. Yesu ni Mungu. Alikuja duniani akafundisha na kutenda miujiza mikubwa ya ki-Mungu. Kama huamini Yesu alikuja duniani, nenda Israeli, utaona uthibitisho wa kihistoria.
2. Dhamiri za wanadamu zina ujuzi wa mema na mabaya, jambo linalothibitisha kuwa yupo Mungu mwema na mwenye haki.
3. Maisha ya wanaoamini kuwa Mungu yupo yamebadilishwa kwa uwezo wa Mungu. Uwezo huo ndio unaowafanya majambazi sugu kuacha ujambazi; walevi wa kupindukia kuacha ulevi na kuwa watu wema.
4. Uwepo wa mapepo. Watu wengi wameonekana wakipagawa na mapepo. Yanapokemewa kwa Jina la Yesu yanatoka. Mapepo ni malaika walioasi na shetani wakafukuzwa kutoka mbinguni kwa Mungu, wakatupwa duniani. Hawa ndio wanaoshirikiana na wachawi.
5. Mimi binafsi nimeshuhudia uwepo wa Mungu kwa njia nyingi sana. Mungu ameniponya magonjwa mengi kwa Jina la Yesu. Mapepo na wachawi wameniijia si mara moja wakitaka kunidhuru, nimewashinda kwa Jina Yesu. Mungu amenibariki kifamilia, kikazi, kiuchumi; amenipa na maarifa mengi kwa njia zisizo za kawaida.

Mungu akusaidie kutambua kuwa yupo.

 

[Smotor]

U

Kuna uthibitisho mwingi sana unaoonyesha Mungu yupo.
Ngoja nikutajie baadhi ya evidences:
1. Yesu ni Mungu. Alikuja duniani akafundisha na kutenda miujiza mikubwa ya ki-Mungu. Kama huamini Yesu alikuja duniani, nenda Israeli, utaona uthibitisho wa kihistoria.
2. Dhamiri za wanadamu zina ujuzi wa mema na mabaya, jambo linalothibitisha kuwa yupo Mungu mwema na mwenye haki.
3. Maisha ya wanaoamini kuwa Mungu yupo yamebadilishwa kwa uwezo wa Mungu. Uwezo huo ndio unaowafanya majambazi sugu kuacha ujambazi; walevi wa kupindukia kuacha ulevi na kuwa watu wema.
4. Uwepo wa mapepo. Watu wengi wameonekana wakipagawa na mapepo. Yanapokemewa kwa Jina la Yesu yanatoka. Mapepo ni malaika walioasi na shetani wakafukuzwa kutoka mbinguni kwa Mungu, wakatupwa duniani. Hawa ndio wanaoshirikiana na wachawi.
5. Mimi binafsi nimeshuhudia uwepo wa Mungu kwa njia nyingi sana. Mungu ameniponya magonjwa mengi kwa Jina la Yesu. Mapepo na wachawi wameniijia si mara moja wakitaka kunidhuru, nimewashinda kwa Jina Yesu. Mungu amenibariki kifamilia, kikazi, kiuchumi; amenipa na maarifa mengi kwa njia zisizo za kawaida.

Mungu akusaidie kutambua kuwa yupo.

Uthibitisho gan wa kihistoria unaonesha Yesu ni Mungu ?

Kwanini hao waisrael ndio wengi wasioamini habari za Yesu ?

Hadi hapo inaoneaha kwamba kwda Israel si namna nzuri ya kuthibitisha.

Inawezekana ni story za uongo zimetungwa tu na watu.


Nimekwambia uthibitishe kama mungu yupo, wewe umeanza kunihubiria!!!

Shame on you