If God knows the future (omniscient), can you change your destiny?

[Ishmael]

Wewe thibitisha Mungu hayupo...otherwise yupo.

Sio kila usichokiona hakipo

Kama mungu hayupo, hawezi kuthibitishika kwamba hayupo.

Kwa sababu visivyopo havithibitishiki kwamba havipo.

Kwa sababu havipo ili kuthibitishika.

Ni kweli, sio kila nisichokiona hakipo.

Lakini pia sio kila nisichokiona kipo.

S ?

Alipo anza kujibu kwa kutumia "KAMA" teyari amesha tumia assumption na post yake yote ina base kwenye assumption na inakuwa fallacious.

 

[housegirl]

Kazi tunayo hadi mtakapoelewa

Unatakiwa ujue kuwa Mungu hakuumba dunia iliyopungua bali iliyokamilifu lakini ili iendelee kuwa hivyo mamlaka hayo yalikuwa mikononi mwa Adam

Pale alipochemka tu na kumkubalia Shetani kumdanganya hiyo ilimaanisha kuwa alimkabidhi mamlaka aliyopewa na Mungu ya kutawala kila kitu na kumkabidhi shetani

Tangu siku ile kuna mambo ambayo yanatokea kwasababu ya Shetani,mfano wa hili ni kifo chenyewe na nyoka kukosa miguu

Mungu alimuumba binadamu bila ya kifo lakini kifo kilikuja kwasababu ya shetani
Mungu alimuumba nyoka akiwa na miguu lakini alikosa miguu kwasababu ya shetani!

haujaAdress swali langu la logic.

and tunapotofautiana ni pale wewe unapoona ulimwengu ambamo kifo kingetokea ni ulimwengu mkamilifu.

 

[Ishmael]

Hivi mkuu hayo maneno hapo kwenye bold yana maana gani?

Ni neno la Kiarabu lenye maana ya "May God be Glorified and Exalted"

 

[Eiyer]

haujaAdress swali langu la logic.

and tunapotofautiana ni pale wewe unapoona ulimwengu ambamo kifo kingetokea ni ulimwengu mkamilifu.

Unatafsirije ukamilifu?

Nikisema kuwa mwili wako umekamilika kwa kuwa na viungo vyote ninakuwa na maana kuwa huwezi kupoteza kimoja?

 

[Eiyer]

Ni neno la Kiarabu lenye maana ya "May God be Glorified and Exalted"

Asante sana mkuu!!

 

[Demarco]

Kwa wanao discuss uwepo wa Mungu Muumba wa vyote..ningeweza changia namna hii kama huyo ndugu yoka source therealtruth.org

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

The Great Proof of Creation

We have established that creation demands a Creator. The next few paragraphs introduce some amazing scientific proofs of creation.

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

 

[housegirl]

How does a human being know that god is beyond logic? And that this is not a fabricated "deus ex machina" to avoid answering legitimate logic based questions?

Deus ex machina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THAT IS MY QUESTION. If he is incomprehensible, kwanini tutwishwe mzigo kumjua?

 

[Demarco]

How does a human being know that god is beyond logic? And that this is not a fabricated "deus ex machina" to avoid answering legitimate logic based questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Unatukia Wikipedia sana...ipo kazi

 

[Kiranga]

this is the problem. we just never seem to grasp things the same way.

I dont understand what you people dont get.

Do you guys understand the concept of "a world where death is impossible" and "a world where its possible"?

the fact that Mungu aliwaambia that mkila mtakufa meant that the concept of death was already created!

before God created anything there was nothing. at that time, the concept of death was inexistent. God had the idea of death.

he could have created a world without the possibility for death, angeenda kuwaambia kina Adam that they would die wakila tunda, but they wouldnt b'se he didnt create that phenomenon!!!!

believe me, I dont think we are on the same page here.

Nimewauliza hilo swali mara mia kidogo hapa hawajaweza kulijibu kikamilifu.

Wengine walisema mungu hakuumba kifo, shetani ndiye kazi yake.

Nikawauliza huyo shetani aliumbwa na mungu au kajiumba mwenyewe? Kama kaweza kufanya kifo, amefanya kifo katika ulimwengu gani? Ulimwengu wake au ulioumbwa na mungu?

Kama mungu ndiye muumba wa ulimwengu, na kaweka mipaka ya nini kinawezekana na nini hakiwezekani, mwanzo kabisa alikuwa na uwezo wa kuumba ulimwengu ambao kifo, magonjwa na mabaya yote yasingewezekana.

Kwa nini hakufanya hivyo?

Uwezo alikuwa nao, nia alikuwa nayo, upendo alikuwa nao, kwa nini kaachia kifo na magonjwa namabaya yawezekanike katika ulimwengu wake?

Sijapata jibu mpaka leo.

This question blows hole in the idea that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omni benevolent.

Because the for are inconsistent with how the universe is.

Mungu huyu hawezekaniki kuwapo, akiwapo atajipinga yeye mwenyewe.

Huku ana upendo mkuu, huku karuhusu ulimwengu wenye mabaya yote haya hata pale alipokuwa na uwezo wote pamoja na upendo wote wa kuzuia hayo.

Contradictory.

 

[Ishmael]

Ahsanta! God Jesus Christ bless you

Amen, Be blessed too.

 

[Kiranga]

Unatukia Wikipedia sana...ipo kazi

Unatukia maana yake nini?

Hiyo Wikipedia wajomba kuelewana kazi, unataka niweke articles za JSTOR?

Ushaelewa "deus ex machina" ni nini na inahusikaje hapa?

 

[Ishmael]

THAT IS MY QUESTION. If he is incomprehensible, kwanini tutwishwe mzigo kumjua?

1. If you can use Physics or Math or whatever kumtafuta Mungu na ukampata, then that is a wrong God.
2. Kama unaweza kumfananisha na kitu au whatever, then that is a wrong God.

Yeye alisha sema kwenye Isaiah:
Who do you compare me with?

ISAIAH 40:17, 18, 19
Here is Your God!
…17All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless. 18To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?19As for the idol, a craftsman casts it, A goldsmith plates it with gold, And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.…

 

[Kiranga]

THAT IS MY QUESTION. If he is incomprehensible, kwanini tutwishwe mzigo kumjua?

Halafu tusipomjua na kumfuata tuambiwe tunafanya dhambi na tutachomwa moto kwa kutomjua mungu ambaye hajulikaniki?

Hafuati logic wala formula tunayoielewa?

Huku ana mapenzi makuu, huku karuhusu ulimwengu uwe na maovu yasiyomithilika.

Is this fair to us?

Does this god really exist au ni stories tu?

 

[Ishmael]

THAT IS MY QUESTION. If he is incomprehensible, kwanini tutwishwe mzigo kumjua?

NB: You need Him, He doesn't need you for Him to be God.

Just like education, you need education and education doesn't need you. SAME LOGIC

 

[schizoid-man]

You won't answer any of my questions yet you can't restrain yourself from replying to my posts.

Pick one. Do you want to answer my questions or not? Right now you are contradicting yourself.

I doubt you understand the difference between me shitting on a current Profesa Maji Marefu's cure for AIDS and not shitting on the possibility that it is conceivable that a cure for AIDS will be found.

But then again, you threw a tautology like an iliterate nincompoop, so why should I expect you to know any better?

Your positions on me shitting on the cure for AIDS and loving to have sex without a condom knowing the cure will save me is a classical non sequitur. Your religiosity has blinded you so much that you see everything in the tint of your fuucking useless godhead.

Why would an all capable, all loving.godhead create a world.with so much senseless suffering as this? You have not answered this question.

I just shat on redundancies, you are still stuck on me shitting on gods?

Science, on which the cure for AIDS is mainly based upon, is founded on inquiry, reevaluation.of positions according to the evidence and investigation.

I have no problem changing my positions, as long as the evidence is sufficiently convincing.

But that does.not nean I can't shit on hogwash today, by today's evidence.

I suspect that yoy not only don't know where I am standing, but also that you do not have the ability to know where I am standing.

"You won't answer any of my questions yet you can't restrain yourself from replying to my posts." kwa kuwa sitojibu maswali yako ndo ulitaka nikae kimya? u are doing the same thing rafiki, nimekwambia sikujibu lakini bado unaendelea kuniuliza maswali. Calling me a nincompoop wont get u any answers, sasa sijui unataka majibu au unachukizwa tu na sisi tunaoamini uwepo wa Mungu. Im a believer and you? I dont know, since "I dont have the ability to know where u are standing".

"Pick one. Do you want to answer my questions or not? Right now you are contradicting yourself." again, the answer is no.

tuendelee kuchat bas my fellow nincompoop.

 

[housegirl]

Mimi nilibahatika kufanya Hisabati ya juu, wakati ule tulikuwa wachache sana tulio fanya Applied and Pure Mathematics, sasa nafikri unaelewa kuwa hata Hisabati kaanzisha Mungu. Kwenye Hisabati kuna reasoning kubwa sana, lakini bado hiyo reasoning inafuata na kuheshimu mipaka yote aliyo weka Mungu.

Lakini, je, utawezaje kureason kuhusu Mungu asiye na Mwanzo? Wapi utaanzia kumfikiria? Because our God is timeless and eternity, jambo ambalo kwenye Hisabati tunasema ni infinity, sasa logic itaanza kukuuliza, kivipi Yesu Mungu asiwe na mwanzo lakini awe ni Mwanzo. Sasa nitafikaje kwenye infinity? Is infinity there au ni assumptions tu za kusolve Hisabati? Au ndio zile Hisabati za integral ambazo ukisha pata jibu lazima uweke plus Constant, ingawa kwenye derivation ya hilo jibu unafumbia macho hiyo constant.

Ndio maana kila kitu kinabidi kuheshimu Mungu aliye anzisha na zivunja laws of Physics
1. Yesu katembea kwenye maji bila ya msaada wa machine au chombo. Hiyo ni kinyume na sheria za kifizikia. Mtu fulani anawez asema labda ni kwasabau ya viscosity, lakini, kwanini awe ni Yesu tu/pekee?
2. Yesu ka paa bila machine au chombo. Hapo kavunja sheria ya gravitation.
3. Yesu kageuza maji kuwa wine. Hapo unafahamu kuwa Chemical formula ya Maji sio ya Wine.
4. Yesu anazidisha Mikate na Samaki na kulisha watu zaidi ya Elfu tano. Hapo ndipo utalewa kuwa sheria ni kwa ajili yenu na sio Mtunga Sheria.
5. Achilia mbali kufufua watu kwa kusema Lazaro come OUT...

Ndio maana anaye pinga Yesu kuwa sio Mungu na anaye sema kuwa hakuna Mungu, WOTE WANAITWA WAPUMBAVUH.

Yesu ndie aliye wapa hizo logic, laws of physics, na blah blah zote, NA YESU HUYO HUYO anazivunja pale alipo taka, tena akiwa hapa duniani.

Now, sasa niambie, kwa kutumia reasoning, Kivipi Five loaves of Bread and Two fish, vilishe watu elfu tano?

if God beyond logic? or does he defy logic? those two are not the same....

yes i see we cannot use logic to explain his timeless "nature"

but untill you answer my first question, we will have no way to know the other of his characteristics

 

[Ishmael]

Wanazuoni:

Kuna sababu kuu ambayo ilimfanya Mwenyezi Mungu kusema kuwa, "Mpumbavuh" kasema kuwa hakuna Mungu moyoni mwake (Ushaidi upo ndani ya Zaburi ya Daudi). Sasa basi leo tujiratibu na maneno haya mawili: Tofauti baina ya Mpumbavuh na Mjinga.

Wanazuoni, elewa kuwa kusoma kwingi sio kuufuta ujinga kama wanavyo dai wapinga Mungu, bali ni kuupunguza ujinga ulio kuwa aufahamu. Wanadunia wote wana ujinga wa jambo moja au kadhaa, haijalishi elimu yako ni ya wapi au imani yako ni ipi. Wapenzi wa dini kuwa na ujinga wa jambo si kosa, hata Profesa wa Fizikia wa Marekani anaweza asijue namna ya kupika Ugali lakini Binti wa kutoka Kijiji cha Nangurukuru anaweza kuwa hodari wa jambo hilo kumshinda Profesa. Hilo si kosa wala dhanbi.

Lakini "mpumbavuh" upumbavuh ni ile hali ya binadamu kufanya jambo isivyotakiwa huku akiwa na uelewa na au ufahamu wa namna ya kufanya inavyotakiwa na au huna ueleo kuwa ufahamu wako si ukweli/kweli, na kung’ang’ania kuwa unacho elewa ndio sahihi, kisa, eti, mimi nimefuta ujinga zaidi ya yule mpenzi wa dini. Huo ndio upumbavuh wa Non Theists. Kila mmoja wetu ana ujinga wake. Kuwa na ujinga wa jambo fulani ni kutoelewa jambo hilo. Ni nani anayeelewa kila jambo hapa duniani zaidi ya Yesu Kristo? Lakini Non-theists wao wanafikiri kuwa wanaelewa kila kitu huku wakifahamu kuwa wao bado hawana majibu ya kivipi jiwe litengeneze “maisha” au life.

Allahamdullilah, wanadunia tumejaliwa akili ili tuweze kufikiri na kuongeza ufahamu kwa kukubali kujifunza. Inakuwaje basi mwanadamu anapoacha kufikiri na kudai kuwa eti Fulani hayupo au hajawai kuwepo kwasababu sijawai kumuona?

Mwenyezi Mungu Subhanahu wa Taala anasema kuwa, Mpumbavuh kasema moyoni mwake kuwa Mungu hayupo. Hili ni jambo lakujiuliza, kwanini Mungu awaite wale Wapumbavuh.

Daudi,................... Selah

 

[Kiranga]

"You won't answer any of my questions yet you can't restrain yourself from replying to my posts." kwa kuwa sitojibu maswali yako ndo ulitaka nikae kimya? u are doing the same thing rafiki, nimekwambia sikujibu lakini bado unaendelea kuniuliza maswali. Calling me a nincompoop wont get u any answers, sasa sijui unataka majibu au unachukizwa tu na sisi tunaoamini uwepo wa Mungu. Im a believer and you? I dont know, since "I dont have the ability to know where u are standing".

"Pick one. Do you want to answer my questions or not? Right now you are contradicting yourself." again, the answer is no.

tuendelee kuchat bas my fellow nincompoop.

Kujibu hata ukireply post bila kujibu maswali umeninibu.

Umeniambia hunijibu halafu umenijibu.

How contradictory.

 

[housegirl]

God can do whatever He wants. Kwani logic si inamipaka yake.

Angalia violation of logic here: Yesu analisha watu elfu tano kwa kutumia Mikate 5 na samaki 2. Lakini mabaki ni vikapi 12. Sasa hapo logic yako inaweza kufua dafu?

1. Kivipi Mikate Mitano na Samaki wawili walishe watu Elfu tano?
2. Kivipi Mabaki ya Mikate 5 na Samaki 2, vijaze VIKAPU 12?

NDIO MAANA NILISEMA MAPEMA SANA KUWA, GOD IS ABOVE LOGIC.

so he defies logic and is above logic?

 

[housegirl]

Kwanini unataka Mungu aumbe ulimwengu ambao kifo hakikuwezekana?

its not about me (well it is considering its not my choice to exist). its about him. why mseme ni All-loving kisha atengeneze kifo/uwezekano wa kifo?