Kuna siku utakutana na Mungu ukiwa peke yako

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Mimi ninayesema Mungu hayupo sina mzigo wa kuthibitisha Mungu ana sababu ya kuruhusu suffering.

Kwa sabau, kama Mungu hayupo, hana sababu ya kuruhusu suffering, suffering inatokea kwa sababu Mungu hayupo.

Kutoka upande wangu, sina sababu wala mzigo wa kuthibitisha Mungu anaruhusu suffering.

Ila wewe, unayesema Mungu yupo, ndiye mwenye mzigo wa kuthibitisha Mungu anaruhusu siffering.

Hunathibitisha hata Mungu yupo, let alone anaruhusu suffering.

Unarudia rudia "inawezekana". Ukisema "inawezekana" hapo maana yake kuna uoande wa pili kuwa inawezekana isiwe hivyo pia. Sasa unathibitishaje ukweli uko wapi?

Nimekuwekea contradictions kemkem hapa unaziruka kwa sababu huzipendi zina expose uongo kagika hoja yako ya Mungu kuwapo.

Inaonekana huna interwst na hizo contradictions una intwrest ya kumtetea Mungu wako, ambaye huwezi hata kuthibitisha kwamba yupo.

Kuhusu kubadikisha mawazo, sasa Mungu akiwa kashapanga tangu awali atafanya hivi hapo kabadikisha mawazo kivipi?

Mungu anaweza kubadilisha nawazo au hawezi? Kwa namna yoyote ile. Hujajibu unarukaruka tu.

Thibitisha Mungu yupo.

Nimeonesha contradictions za Mungu omnipotent, omniscuent na omnibenevikent lakini huzitaki.

Unakuja na pingamizi za kijinga za kidini za "the lord works in mysterious ways" tu.

Kwa sasa unani bore tu, unarudia wooden arguments za kukwepa hoja wala sioni maana kuendelea kujibizana nawe.

I do not find that interesting and it is frankly wasting my time.

Nakuelewa, lakini kuna sehemu moja muhimu unachanganya: kutokuwa na uthibitisho wa Mungu hakuthibitishi kwamba Mungu hayupo.

Umesema wewe huna mzigo wa kueleza kwa nini suffering ipo kwa sababu unaamini Mungu hayupo. Sawa—lakini hapo bado unahitaji kuonyesha kwa nini conclusion yako “Mungu hayupo” inafuata kimantiki. Ukisema tu “sijaona sababu ya Mungu kuruhusu suffering”, hiyo si proof ya kutokuwepo kwake.

Kuhusu “inawezekana”, sikusema inawezekana = ni kweli. Nimesema hoja yako haijathibitisha contradiction ya lazima. Kama unaweza kuonyesha kwamba Mungu mwenye omnipotence, omniscience na omnibenevolence hawezi kimantiki kabisa kuumba ulimwengu wenye suffering, basi hapo umeweka contradiction halisi. Lakini kusema “Mungu angeweza kuzuia suffering, kwa hiyo hana sababu ya kuiacha” bado hakuthibitishi kwamba hakuna sababu yoyote inayowezekana.

Na kuhusu kubadili mawazo: Mungu kujua tangu mwanzo kwamba atafanya X si sawa na kusema hawezi kubadili X. Swali ni kama “kubadili” kunamaanisha Mungu alikuwa na knowledge ya uongo hapo awali. Kama Mungu ni omniscient, tatizo lako linahitaji kulenga hilo moja kwa moja.

Kwa hiyo tusibishane kwa “mysterious ways”. Chukua contradiction moja tu unayoiona ni ya lazima, iandike kwa premises → conclusion, halafu tui-test moja moja.

Mimi niko tayari kuijadili. Lakini “huwezi kuthibitisha Mungu yupo” na “Mungu hawezi kuwepo” ni madai mawili tofauti.

 

[Kiranga]

Nakuelewa, lakini kuna sehemu moja muhimu unachanganya: kutokuwa na uthibitisho wa Mungu hakuthibitishi kwamba Mungu hayupo.

Umesema wewe huna mzigo wa kueleza kwa nini suffering ipo kwa sababu unaamini Mungu hayupo. Sawa—lakini hapo bado unahitaji kuonyesha kwa nini conclusion yako “Mungu hayupo” inafuata kimantiki. Ukisema tu “sijaona sababu ya Mungu kuruhusu suffering”, hiyo si proof ya kutokuwepo kwake.

Kuhusu “inawezekana”, sikusema inawezekana = ni kweli. Nimesema hoja yako haijathibitisha contradiction ya lazima. Kama unaweza kuonyesha kwamba Mungu mwenye omnipotence, omniscience na omnibenevolence hawezi kimantiki kabisa kuumba ulimwengu wenye suffering, basi hapo umeweka contradiction halisi. Lakini kusema “Mungu angeweza kuzuia suffering, kwa hiyo hana sababu ya kuiacha” bado hakuthibitishi kwamba hakuna sababu yoyote inayowezekana.

Na kuhusu kubadili mawazo: Mungu kujua tangu mwanzo kwamba atafanya X si sawa na kusema hawezi kubadili X. Swali ni kama “kubadili” kunamaanisha Mungu alikuwa na knowledge ya uongo hapo awali. Kama Mungu ni omniscient, tatizo lako linahitaji kulenga hilo moja kwa moja.

Kwa hiyo tusibishane kwa “mysterious ways”. Chukua contradiction moja tu unayoiona ni ya lazima, iandike kwa premises → conclusion, halafu tui-test moja moja.

Mimi niko tayari kuijadili. Lakini “huwezi kuthibitisha Mungu yupo” na “Mungu hawezi kuwepo” ni madai mawili tofauti.

Hakuna kipya hapa, unarudia yaleyale tu. In an endless, meaningless, trope filled back and forth. With tired old shameles arguments.

I find this boring, below standards and a waste of my time.

Obviously you are not ready to engage honestly. You are fighting for your belief regardless.

I will put you in my ignore list.

That means I will not see your posts from here onwards.

 

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Hakuna kipya hapa, unarudia yaleyale tu. In an endless, meaningless, trope filled back and forth. With tired old shameles arguments.

I find this boring, below standards and a waste of my time.

Obviously you are not ready to engage honestly. You are fighting for your belief regardless.

I will put you in my ignore list.

That means I will not see your posts from here onwards.

Sawa mkuu, huna ulazima wa kuendelea na mjadala usiokufurahisha.

Nimeheshimu uamuzi wako.

Mimi nilikuwa najadili hoja, si kupigania mtu akubali ninachoamini.

Kila la heri. Kiranga 🙏

 

[To yeye]

Hakika

 

[Renegade]

Hapo umeunganisha mambo mawili ambayo si lazima yawe sawa. Mimi kuwepo kwangu kunategemea chanzo fulani, lakini hilo halimaanishi Mungu naye lazima awe na chanzo.

Katika dhana ya Mungu kama Muumba wa kwanza, Mungu hakuumbwa; mimi ni kiumbe, Mungu anachukuliwa kuwa Muumba. Kwa hiyo kusema “bila wewe Mungu hayupo” hakufuati kimantiki—uwepo wangu hauwezi kuwa sharti la uwepo wa Mungu.

Hivi unajua kama na wewe ni Mungu? Niliandika hivyo kwa sababu sikutaka kuandika hivi ya kuwa nawe ndiye uliye.

 

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Hivi unajua kama na wewe ni Mungu? Niliandika hivyo kwa sababu sikutaka kuandika hivi ya kuwa nawe ndiye uliye.

Hapana, mimi si Mungu. Na kama unamaanisha kwamba “wewe ndiye uliye” ukimaanisha Mungu, basi hilo ndilo jambo tunalopaswa kulifafanua kwanza kabla ya kuendelea na hoja.

 

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Hakika

Hakika

Hakika. Pekee Yake. 🙏

 

[Renegade]

Hapana, mimi si Mungu. Na kama unamaanisha kwamba “wewe ndiye uliye” ukimaanisha Mungu, basi hilo ndilo jambo tunalopaswa kulifafanua kwanza kabla ya kuendelea na hoja.

Mungu ni concept, ni cheo ambacho kinamtambulisha "the most high' being na pia hayuko peke yake kuna higher being wengineo.
Being ni Energy, from Quatum physics perspective wewe na hata Mungu wote ni Energy,from LAaw of conservation of Mass "Matter can neither created nor destroyed", Meaning you can be fromed in any physical body and still remain the same energy internally.
Your existence is far beyond this World, you only came here to remember yourself and exprience life on earth.
And when the call come you can go back to where you came and belong.
.......and if you put more effort to work out from inside you will definitely understand who really you are and remember your purpose of coming here, Every information has been hidden inside.

 

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Mungu ni concept, ni cheo ambacho kinamtambulisha "the most high' being na pia hayuko peke yake kuna higher being wengineo.
Being ni Energy, from Quatum physics perspective wewe na hata Mungu wote ni Energy,from LAaw of conservation of Mass "Matter can neither created nor destroyed", Meaning you can be fromed in any physical body and still remain the same energy internally.
Your existence is far beyond this World, you only came here to remember yourself and exprience life on earth.
And when the call come you can go back to where you came and belong.
.......and if you put more effort to work out from inside you will definitely understand who really you are and remember your purpose of coming here, Every information has been hidden inside.

Nimekupata. Hii ni perspective ya kifalsafa/spirituality, lakini kuna sehemu kadhaa ambazo zinahitaji kutenganishwa na sayansi.

Kwanza, kusema “Mungu ni concept au cheo” ni definition yako; si ushahidi kwamba Mungu ni concept tu. Vivyo hivyo, kusema kila being ni energy hakujathibitishwa na quantum physics kwa maana hiyo.

Pili, Law of Conservation of Mass haimaanishi kwamba “wewe ni energy iliyokuja duniani kutoka mahali fulani na siku ya kufa inarudi ulikotoka.” Hiyo ni interpretation ya kiroho, si conclusion ya hiyo law. Pia kwenye physics ya kisasa tunatofautisha mass na energy; mass inaweza kubadilishwa kuwa energy na energy kuwa mass chini ya mazingira yanayofaa.

Na kama unasema taarifa zote za sisi ni nani na tulikotoka zimefichwa ndani yetu, swali langu ni hili: tunawezaje kutofautisha “kumbukumbu ya kweli ya asili yetu” na hisia, intuition au belief ya mtu binafsi?

Sina tatizo na mtu kuwa na mtazamo huo wa kiroho. Hoja yangu ni kwamba tusichanganye belief ya metaphysics na conclusion iliyothibitishwa na quantum physics. Kama tunaweza kuonyesha evidence kwamba consciousness yetu ilikuwepo kabla ya kuzaliwa na kwamba baada ya kifo inarudi kwenye chanzo fulani, hapo ndipo hoja inakuwa ya kuchambua kisayansi, si kuamini tu.

 

[Smart911]

Za kuambiwa changanya na za kwako...


Cc: Mahondaw

 

[1995_No_Ku_Fake]

Za kuambiwa changanya na za kwako...


Cc: Mahondaw

Ndivo ilivo Smart911