Kama Mungu hayupo, umaarufu wake unatoka wapi?

[Kiranga]

Usitokwe mapovu mkuu. Hayo maandiko yako unayosema hayana jibu la hili swali bali umeeleza sana kuwa kuna imani na imani potofu,pia ukamalizia na kusema kuwa tatizo sio imani ila imani potofu.
Sasa maelezo hayo hakuna jibu la wazi kuwa umekubaliana na nilichokuuliza na mimi nataka jibu la wazi kutoka na nilichokuuliza

Nilipotokwa povu wapi?

Na unajuaje kwamba ni povu langu na si sensitivity yako?

Unajua kwamba kwa wengine mtu anayesema "Usitokwe povu mkuu" kirahisi bila justification ndiye anayeonekana kutokwa povu kwa kuona povu pasipo na povu?

Unawezaje kujua hili ni povu na hii ni passionate and honest exchange?

Mimi nishakwambia hakuna mtu anayeweza kuishi bila imani. Nishakwambia sipingi habari ya kuwepo kwa mungu kwa sababu ni imani, napinga kwa sababu ni imani potofu.

Sasa unapataje mshipa wa kunihoji bila aibu kama kusema hakuna mungu kunahitaji imani?

Kuna chochote mtu yeyote anachoweza kusema ambacho hakihitaji imani?

Kama kipo unaweza kukitaja hapa?

Nilipoandika kwamba sina tatizo na imani, nina tatizo na imani potofu, ulielewa?

 

[SANCTUS ANACLETUS]

Wote wanaoshindwa kuthibitisha kuwa Mungu yupo na wale wanaoshindwa kuthibitisha hayupo waweza kuwa sawa na si sawa pia wakati huo huo.
Kushindwa kuthibitisha jambo leo hakumaanishi kuwa jambo hilo halipo wakati wowote ule au halikuwahi kuwepo na/halitatokea.Kushindwa kuthibitisha kuwa jambo fulani lipo hakufanyi jambo hilo kutokuwepo.Mfumo wa kuthibitisha jambo( hali fulani) kuwa lipo na mfumo wa jinsi kitu hicho au jambo hilo lilivyo ni subjective to the essence of the phenomenon. Ni hivi Ukionyesha kuwa lile ni chungwa haimaanishi kuonyesha kwako ndo kumefanya chungwa hilo liwepo.Wewe unakuwa umeona kuwa lile ni chungwa baada ya mambo mawili:

1.Mfumo uliolifanya chungwa kuwepo kukamilika na kuruhusu wewe kuliona hilo chungwa
2.Mfumo wa wewe kuona au kuhisi kuwa lile ni chungwa kukamilika na kukuruhusa kuona au kuhisi.
Niendelee kutumia mfano wa Chungwa:

Unapoona chungwa au kuthibitisha kuwa chungwa hili lipo hapa au pale unaweza kujua au kuthibitisha kuwa kabla ya muda huo ambapo umethibitisha lilikuwa wapi? Je wewe kushindwa kuthibitisha kuwa lilikuwepo sehemu fulani kunaondoa ukweli kuwa lilikuwepo sehemu nyingine ambayo wewe huijui?

 

[SANCTUS ANACLETUS]

Naomba nitumie mfano mwingine kueleza jambo(dhana ya uwepo au kutokuwepo)Mungu:

1.Leo mtu anaunda gari kule Japan kwa mfano.Ili wewe ujue au ulione hilo gari Tanzania ni lazima lifike Tanzania.Sasa tujiulize maswali yafuatayo:


1.Kama usingeweza ona gari hilo Tanzania kunaondoa ukweli kuwa kumekuwa na gari kama hilo kule Japani?

2. Je kunaondoa ukweli kuwa kuna mtu alitengeneza gari huko Japan? Nina maana kuwa kunaondoa ukweli kuwa Mjapani ndiye Essence (kiini/mwanzo) ya gari hilo?

3. Je, kunaondoa ukweli kuwa mtu huyo Mjapani atakuwa aliona "picha ya gari" (alivuviwa) hilo toka sehemu nyingine na ndio maana akaweza kutengeneza kama linavyoonekana?

3.Je chanzo cha uvuvio wa picha ya gari(namna gari linavyopaswa kuwa) unaweza kukithibitisha wewe au hata Mjapani mwenyewe?Je kushindwa kuthibitisha kunaondoa Essence yake?

Kwa hiyo tunaosema Mungu hayupo tunamaanisha nini?Tunataka au tulitegemea awepo wapi? Mlitaka exist kama Sold,Liquid or gas? Mnasema juu ya "WEMA na UOVU".Kama kuthibitisha ndio njia pekee ya kulifanya jambo liwepo je:

1.Tunaweza kuthibitisha kuwa ukweli au uovu una-exist? Je, tulicho nacho kama uthibitisho ni tabia za ukweli/uovu au Ukweli au Uovu?Je tukiona nguo unazovaa ndiyo tuhitimishe kuwa nguo hizo ndio wewe mwenyewe?

 

[Kiranga]

Wote wanaoshindwa kuthibitisha kuwa Mungu yupo na wale wanaoshindwa kuthibitisha hayupo waweza kuwa sawa na si sawa pia wakati huo huo.
Kushindwa kuthibitisha jambo leo hakumaanishi kuwa jambo hilo halipo wakati wowote ule au halikuwahi kuwepo na/halitatokea.Kushindwa kuthibitisha kuwa jambo fulani lipo hakufanyi jambo hilo kutokuwepo.Mfumo wa kuthibitisha jambo( hali fulani) kuwa lipo na mfumo wa jinsi kitu hicho au jambo hilo lilivyo ni subjective to the essence of the phenomenon. Ni hivi Ukionyesha kuwa lile ni chungwa haimaanishi kuonyesha kwako ndo kumefanya chungwa hilo liwepo.Wewe unakuwa umeona kuwa lile ni chungwa baada ya mambo mawili:

1.Mfumo uliolifanya chungwa kuwepo kukamilika na kuruhusu wewe kuliona hilo chungwa
2.Mfumo wa wewe kuona au kuhisi kuwa lile ni chungwa kukamilika na kukuruhusa kuona au kuhisi.
Niendelee kutumia mfano wa Chungwa:

Unapoona chungwa au kuthibitisha kuwa chungwa hili lipo hapa au pale unaweza kujua au kuthibitisha kuwa kabla ya muda huo ambapo umethibitisha lilikuwa wapi? Je wewe kushindwa kuthibitisha kuwa lilikuwepo sehemu fulani kunaondoa ukweli kuwa lilikuwepo sehemu nyingine ambayo wewe huijui?

Nimeongelea habari za framework na negligible margin of error hapo kabla.

Kwamba hatuwezi kuthibitisha kwamba jua litachomoza kesho, lakini tunaweza kusema - kwa kuondoa a negligible margin of error- kwamba kesho jua litachomoza na hivyo kama tuna kazi za kupanga za kesho, tupange tu, maana jua, kwa kuangalia ujui tulionao na kuacha kuangalia a negligible possibility that the sun will go supernovae in the next minute, litaendelea kuchomoza kesho asubuhi.

Ukitumia maneno yako hayo unaweza kusema unashindwa kuthibitisha kwamba wewe upo au haupo.

Wewe unatumia mfumo gani katika maisha practical kuthibitisha kwamba kitu kipo au hakipo?

 

[REDEEMER.]

Kiranga epistemology has nothing to do with unbelieving epistemology deals with the study of knowledge which is useful too and relevant in many religious doctrines and is the pillar in setting people in the posture of understanding the faith.

Why your faith is only applicable in Sun or easy things like tax consumptions that's is too low to apply faith on.

But in general context with multiple connotations of faith once you have faith you are automatic in the sense of believing talking about perfect faith or logical faith in the spectrum of faith basing of the natural meaning of it. All have nothing to do with the faith since there is warrant of perfection of faith beared by the believer on whether that thing is going to happen or not faith remains as the personal motive between the believer and the believed.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or abelief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief,[1] such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.........Wikipedia

 

[SANCTUS ANACLETUS]

Je wale tunaotoa ushahidi kwamba Mungu hayupo kwa sababu ameshindwa kufanya hiki au kile au ameshindwa kuruhusu hiki au kile hebu tutalii haya maswali:

1. Wewe ni binadamu.Kuna binadamu wametuma mpaka sasa vyombo anga za juu lakini wewe hujaweza hata kwa muda kumrusha Kiroboto angani na kumuning'iniza huko.Je sasa wewe umekoma kuwa binadamu kwa kuwa tu umeshindwa kurusha chombo kama hicho kama wenzako?

2.Huko nyuma "tulithibitisha" sayari ziko tisa.Leo tumethibitisha ziko zaidi ya tisa.Je,huo uthibitisho wa sayari tisa ni uthibitisho wa muda au uthibitisho kamilifu? Je uthibitisho kamilifu ungewezekanaje bila uthibitisho pungufu(
huo wa sayari 9)?

2.Tunajenga hoja ya kutokuwepo Mungu kwa sababu ya kile tunachokiita mapungufu.Je tulitaka iweje? Tulitaka hayo tunayoyaita mapungufu yaumbweje? Je hayo mapungufu yasingekuwepo je wewe ungelikuwepo? Je, wewe mbona hujachukia kuvuta oxygen baada ya kupungukiwa oxygen? Huoni kuwa hali hiyo ya "upungufu" ndio
chanzo cha oxygen nyingine?

3.Je kama uthibitisho kuwa Mungu yupo ingekuwa uwezo wa yeye kuumba yaliyokamilika,je, ungeanzia wapi kufahamu au kuthibitisha kuwa hiki ni kikamilifu? Watu mnatolea mifano ya njaa,vifo,Vilema, na vinginevyo.Ndio tuseme ni mapungufu.Ungejuaje hayo unayoyaita "makamilifu" bila "mapungufu" kuwepo?

 

[Kiranga]

Naomba nitumie mfano mwingine kueleza jambo(dhana ya uwepo au kutokuwepo)Mungu:

1.Leo mtu anaunda gari kule Japan kwa mfano.Ili wewe ujue au ulione hilo gari Tanzania ni lazima lifike Tanzania.Sasa tujiulize maswali yafuatayo:


1.Kama usingeweza ona gari hilo Tanzania kunaondoa ukweli kuwa kumekuwa na gari kama hilo kule Japani?

2. Je kunaondoa ukweli kuwa kuna mtu alitengeneza gari huko Japan? Nina maana kuwa kunaondoa ukweli kuwa Mjapani ndiye Essence (kiini/mwanzo) ya gari hilo?

3. Je, kunaondoa ukweli kuwa mtu huyo Mjapani atakuwa aliona "picha ya gari" (alivuviwa) hilo toka sehemu nyingine na ndio maana akaweza kutengeneza kama linavyoonekana?

3.Je chanzo cha uvuvio wa picha ya gari(namna gari linavyopaswa kuwa) unaweza kukithibitisha wewe au hata Mjapani mwenyewe?Je kushindwa kuthibitisha kunaondoa Essence yake?

Kwa hiyo tunaosema Mungu hayupo tunamaanisha nini?Tunataka au tulitegemea awepo wapi? Mlitaka exist kama Sold,Liquid or gas? Mnasema juu ya "WEMA na UOVU".Kama kuthibitisha ndio njia pekee ya kulifanya jambo liwepo je:

1.Tunaweza kuthibitisha kuwa ukweli au uovu una-exist? Je, tulicho nacho kama uthibitisho ni tabia za ukweli/uovu au Ukweli au Uovu?Je tukiona nguo unazovaa ndiyo tuhitimishe kuwa nguo hizo ndio wewe mwenyewe?

Gari si mfano mzuri. Kwa sababu gari lipo, tunalijua, tunaliendesha kila siku. Halina contradiction.

Mungu si kama gari. Gari linaonekana kwa macho.

Mungu ana contradiction.Ni kama pembetatu duara katika Euclidean geometry. Pembetatu haiwezi kuwa duara na duara haliwezi kuwa pembetatu.

Ukiona pembetatu ambayo ni duara wakati huo huo, njoo unioneshe haraka sana. Siku hiyo hiyo nitakubali mungu yupo.

Kwa nini?

Kuwepo kwa pembetatu ambalo I duara pia hapo hapo ni sawa sawa na kuwepo kwa mungu huyu mwenye uwezo wote, ujuzi wote na upendo wote.

Vyote viwili, pembetatu ambayo ni duara na mungu muweza yote, mjuzi wa yote na mwenye mapenzi yote ambaye kaumba ulimwengu huu wenye maovu, vina contradiction.

Pembetatu haiwezi kuwa duara, duara haiwezi kuwa pembetatu. Not in the framework of Euclidean geometry. Pembetatu duara ni contradiction.

Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote, kwa nini kaumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya yanawezekana wakati alikuwa na uwezo wote, ujuzi wote na upendo wote wa kuumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani?

Mungu huyo kuumba ulimwengu kama huu ni contradiction.

Majibu mengi yametolewa.

Moja ni kwamba mungu alitaka tuwe na freewill.

Jibu hili linashindwa kujua au kukubali kwamba hatuna freewill anyway. Kwa mfano, hatuwezi kurudi nyuma katika muda.

Jibu linguine ni kwamba mungu alitaka dunia isiwe na maovu, lakini shetani ndiye chanzo cha maovu. Aliasi na kusababisha uovu.

Jibu hili linajibu swali tofauti na swali langu. Linajibu swali la "kwa nini kuna maovu duniani?" wakati mimi nauliza swali la "Kwa nini mungu mwenye uwezo wote, ujuzi wote na upendo wote kaumba ulimwengu ambao maovu yanaweza kutokea wakati aliweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani bila kupoteza lolote?".

Sijapata jibu la kueleweka la swali hili.

 

[REDEEMER.]

My epistomology is the eradication of faith and replacing it with knowledge. We converge towards this end by the scientific method. We reduce faith and increase knowledge by questioning every faith, and testing it experimentally and logically. We root out what fails and retain what passes empirical and logical standards.



There is no perfect faith. Any faith is stained, because faith supposes untested things.This is why I have said before I am only embracing faith so that I can get rid of faith and converge towards knowledge.

Moreover, the concept of "perfect" itself is questionable. It is entirely possible that things can be said to be "perfect" only in a relative framework. Albert Einstein demonstrated this more than 100 years ago when he showed that there is no absolute (i.e "perfect") time, and that all time is relative.

Why do you think there is anything perfect at all? Let alone perfect faith?

If you extend this argument that there is nothing perfect, you will see that there is no God. Because God is supposed to be the epitome of perfection, and perfection is an idea that cannot be realized.



Your goal should be to eradicate faith, to do this you need to embrace logic so you could converge towards knowledge and away from simple faith.

You eradicate simple faith by examination. One particularly useful way of doing this is looking for contradictions.

For example.

If we know, from Euclidian geometry, that a triangle is not a circle, and a circle is not a triangle.That these two are distinc things, and someone tells us "trust me, I have this magic triangle which is also a circle", we should know that this is a contradiction. We should not believe that.

Why?

Because a triangle is not a circle, a circle is not a triangle, a triangle cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a triangle in the framework of Euclidean geometry.

You may ask, what do triangles and circles have to do with the question of the existence of God?

I have one word.

Contradiction.

Believing an all powerful, all loving and all knowing God exists and created this universe which is full of evil, and this God was able to create a world in which evil is impossible, is contradictory.

Just as believing a triangle which is also simultaneously a circle is contradictory.



The first test is logical consistency. Is the faith that the sun will raise tomorrow contradicted by any evidence or logic?

No. In the history of mankind. The sun has never failed to shine, not for a single day. So this is a pretty good starting point.

But even further than that, current physics states that the sun has about 5 billion years before it exhausts its energy and supernovaes.So we should not be worried about a supernovae today, that will be 5 billion years premature.

So believing that the sun will shine tomorrow is a logical faith. Believing that the sun will not shine tomorrow is not logical. We can test this theory further in 24 hours, although I suspect you will not need the hours to see my point.


You must mean why do I need a logical faith.

Keeping with the sun example, I need a logical faith to know whether to plan my day for tomorrow or not.

I need a logical faith in order to get knowledge and toss away logic.

I need a logical faith so when the government tells me something I can tell when to believe (when they are logical) and when not to believe (when they are not logical). If the government tells me I need to pay taxes so the taxes could help me build roads and hospitals, and year after year of my paying taxes nowhere in the country are the roads or hospital any better, I would say this is not logical, my tax money is neither going towards roads or hospitals. This is a lie. I should protest.

I need logical faith to know things I do not know yet. To find the cure of AIDS, cancer etc. I can't have faith that Konyagi cures AIDS. There is no evidence supporting that. Why should I believe that?

Hahahaa you are just saying there is research done for exhausting and maturity situation of the sun that derived you to get certainty of tomorrow's sunrise. Are agree with me that is not faith on the sun but faith on researchers? How you trust a person tells you the sun won't rise tomorrow either?

What moved you to trust that person in the context of faith?

 

[Kiranga]

Hahahaa you are just saying there is research done for exhausting and maturity situation of the sun that derived you to get certainty of tomorrow's sunrise. Are agree with me that is not faith on the sun but faith on researchers? How you trust a person tells you the sun won't rise tomorrow either?

What moved you to trust that person in the context of faith?

Kwanza kabisa andika Kiswahili kwa sababu hiyo lugha huitendei haki.

Where did I say anything about tomorrow's sunrise certainty?

Can you quote that back to me?

Do you even understand what I write?

 

[Juma chief]

Shetani on fire aisee...!!!.
Mwenyezi mungu hajadiliki....

 

[mair erasto]

Well, unaongeleaje mchango wa kanisa katika ukombozi wa bara la Africa kuhusu elimu kuhusu health services kuhusu counselling and psychology assistance vipi kuhusu solidarity and togetherness brotherhood in faith which many ways prevent community from immorality and make people good.

Kama ni migogoro na chuki je ukabila hauleti hayo madhara au conflicts baina ya jamii na kanda au mataifa tofauti?

Kama sababu inakufanya ukatae imani ni madhehebu mengi unaongeleaje kuhusu vyama vya siasa na vilabu vya mipira kwani hao hawana mashabiki ambao wana uhasama wa hata kuuwana na kuleteana fujo?

Kama ni kupoteza pesa unaongeleaje wanaotumia madawa ya kulevya pombe ufuska na starehe nyingine zenye madhara makubwa kiafya na kisaikolojia katika jamii je hao sio zaidi ya imani ambayo ndio imekua njia ya kweli na uzima kuwapeleka nuruni na kuachana na njia zisizofaa katika jamii?

Je unavyoamini hakuna Mungu una uhakika kiasi gani kwamba hayupo na je ukisikia watu wanasema yupo Mungu wewe haupatwi na hofu au mashaka kwamba hayupo but others say God is real?

sasa huyo ni mungu gani ambaye ww ndio uanze kujiaangaisha kwaajili yake badala yake yeye ndio ahangaike kwaajili ya ww aliye kuumba.

 

[mair erasto]

First i feel concerned na hilo tatizo kweli linatisha ila kuna rumors kwamba hiyo ni Photoshop sababu ni picture ya siku nyingi.

Lakini sithani kama tutakuwa sahihi sana kupinga uwepo wa Mungu sababu kuna watu wenye maumbile au matatizo ya kutisha Yesu bado anatenda miujiza hata sasa.

sasa huyo mungu yeye kazi yake ni nini? na saizi anafanya nini? na yuko wapi?

 

[REDEEMER.]

Kwanza kabisa andika Kiswahili kwa sababu hiyo lugha huitendei haki.

Where did I say anything about tomorrow's sunrise certainty?

Can you quote that back to me?

Do you even understand what I write?

Na hapa ndio wengi mnapataga visingizio vya kukimbia sababu umeshindwa hoja unaleta vihoja.

Get look on the bold


But even further than that, current physics states that the sun has about 5 billion years before it exhausts its energy and supernovaes.So we should not be worried about a supernovae today, that will be 5 billion years premature.

So believing (how pathetic! You believe something experimented and proven already?)that the sun will shine tomorrow is a logical faith. Believing that the sun will not shine tomorrow is not logical. We can test this theory further in 24 hours, although I suspect you will not need the hours to see my point.

Yet you are asking where you have said the sun shall certainty rise tomorrow?

 

[REDEEMER.]

sasa huyo ni mungu gani ambaye ww ndio uanze kujiaangaisha kwaajili yake badala yake yeye ndio ahangaike kwaajili ya ww aliye kuumba.

Kuendana na Bible Mungu anataka tujishughulishe na tufanye kazi na ndio mana akakupa maarifa akili utashi na nguvu zingekua ni useless kama hatuzitumii kukabiliana na changamoto za maisha.

Kwani big bang ilitokeaje?

 

[nusuhela]

Mungu hayupo.

Idea ya Mungu kuwapo inapata umaarufu kwa sababu watu wengi wavivu hawataki kufikiri na hawataki kuchukua responsibility, wanataka mungu awepo ili achukue dhamana ya kutatua mambo yote.

Pia watu wengi hawafikirii logically, wanafikiria emotionaly.

Pia watu wengi wanaogopa kusema wanachofikiri na ku question uwepo wa mungu kwa sababu wanaogopa kuonekana wako tofauti.

Pia kusema huamini kuwepo mungu kunaweza kukukosanisha na familia, jamaa, rafiki, kazini etc.

Kitu kukubalika haina maana ni cha kweli. Kuna wakati watu waliamini dunia ni bapa na si tufe. Hilo halikufanya dunia iwe bapa.

Kuna wakati watu waliamini jua linazunguka dunia. Hilo halikufanya jua lizunguke dunia.

Hata kama watu wote wataamini mungu yupo, kama hayupo hayupo tu.

Kama unasema mungu yupo, thibitisha mungu yupo.

Alafu pia lazima watambue kuwa wao wanaamini Mungu kwakua wanafundishwa. Kama wasingsefundishwa kuwa yupo, basi wasinge amini

 

[ng'adi lawi]

Habarini humu!

Moja kati ya maswali ambayo najiuliza ni kama Mungu hayupo sasa mbona ni jina maarufu sana, nafikiri ni jina pekee lenye kuabudiwa kwa namna tofauti tofauti.. sasa kama hayupo kwanini anaabudiwa kiasi hiki Dunia nzima!

Na kama alitungwa tu na binadamu, hao waliomtunga huyu Mungu wako wapi? inawezekanaje waliomtunga Mungu wasiwe maarufu kuliko Mungu mwenyewe? Ni nani ana ushahidi wa wazi kuhusu watu waliomtunga Mungu, wapo wapi na ni akina nani waliotunga tu uwepo wa Mungu?

Of course ni ngumu kuthibitisha uwepo wake kwa njia na kwa macho ya mwili ila effect yake ipo dhahiri kabisa, sioni kama kuna sababu ya kukataa uwepo wake eti kisa hatuwezi kumthibitisha, mwana huwezi kukithibitisha kitu usichokijua, na haina maana kama kitu hukijui basi hakipo.

Pia watu wengi ambao wanapinga uwepo wa Mungu just kwa sababu hathibitishiki kimwili hawapingi uwepo wa shetani japo naye pia hata hathibitishiki kimwili, why?

Anyway, kwa sababu wanaopinga uwepo wa Mungu wanasema Mungu ni nadharia tu na ametungwa tu na watu, sasa hao watu wanatungaje jina ambalo linaabudiwa kuliko wao? tena ni jina maarufu na kila lugha Duniani lina namna yake ya kumwita ili mradi tu lazima jina Mungu liwepo na liabudiwe.

Wanaopinga uwepo wa Mungu watueleze nani aliumba vyote vilivyopo pamoja na yeye. Ni lazima kuna aliyeumba chochote kilichopo. Imani ya uwepo wa Mungu ndiyo Mungu. Vingine vyote vimetokana naye pamoja hao wanasayansi na sayansi yao.

 

[souljah meditater]

wanasema ni heri kuamini yupo alafu usimkute kuliko kuamini hayupo alafu uumkute

 

[REDEEMER.]

sasa huyo mungu yeye kazi yake ni nini? na saizi anafanya nini? na yuko wapi?

Good Mungu kazi yake ni uumbaji na kufanya yote mema kwa watu wote. Now he is doing good to His people in heaven praised and glorified.

 

[mair erasto]

kuamini ni kukubali jambo bila kuhakiki kwa stadi inayotakiwa,hivyo imani itakuwa ni jambo lisilo hakikiwa kwa stadi inayotakiwa.
Kama nimekosea niweke sawa kwanza hapo mkuu.

kwa jinsi mungu alivyo elezwa ktk hadithi ww ilitakiwa ujue mungu yupo lakini sio hivyo unavyo hisi kwamba mungu yupo.
na kwasababu unahisi mungu yupo na hayupo basi ujue hayupo kwasababu kama angekuwepo ungemjua toka unazaliwa sio hadi walipo anza kukufundisha makanisani.

 

[SANCTUS ANACLETUS]

Nimeongelea habari za framework na negligible margin of error hapo kabla.

Kwamba hatuwezi kuthibitisha kwamba jua litachomoza kesho, lakini tunaweza kusema - kwa kuondoa a negligible margin of error- kwamba kesho jua litachomoza na hivyo kama tuna kazi za kupanga za kesho, tupange tu, maana jua, kwa kuangalia ujui tulionao na kuacha kuangalia a negligible possibility that the sun will go supernovae in the next minute, litaendelea kuchomoza kesho asubuhi.

Ukitumia maneno yako hayo unaweza kusema unashindwa kuthibitisha kwamba wewe upo au haupo.

Wewe unatumia mfumo gani katika maisha practical kuthibitisha kwamba kitu kipo au hakipo?

Hili ulilouliza kuna ufafanunuzi nimeshautoa.Endelea kusoma nyuzi zangu uenda ukapata chochote dhidi ya swali lako na maswali mengine.
Nirejee tena hapa basi:
1.Dhana ya " uwepo" na "kutokuwepo".
Kwanza dhana ya uwepo na kutokuwepo (upungufu) vinatoa dhana ya mambo mawili" yanayohitajiana na kukamilishana.

"Mungu kutokuwepo" (kwa kadri ya tunaodai hivyo).

Tunataka Mungu awepo wapi? Awepo Buguruni,Mikocheni,America au eneo au sayari gani hasa?

Je, kuwepo kwa upungufu fulani (weakness/defects) ndio uthibitisho pekee kuwa Mungu hayupo? Je "upungufu" kiini chake kiko wapi kama sio katika "Uwepo"? Huwezi kuwa na upungufu bila kuwepo kwanza "Uwepo".Uwepo ndio unaleta upungufu(kutokuwepo").