Nedlloyd
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 29, 2014
- 10,361
- 27,215
Sawa Jomba hata kina Hitler, Stalin na Mao Zedong walikuwa sawa kwa manitki mana nao walikuwa na ukweli wao na imagination pia na sio absolute truth .
Nimewaelewa Wajuba.
Sawa Jomba hata kina Hitler, Stalin na Mao Zedong walikuwa sawa kwa manitki mana nao walikuwa na ukweli wao na imagination pia na sio absolute truth .Ndo uanze reverse wanayosema utafika mwisho kwel
Mtabishana ww amin mana hawakuzuii unachoamini mn hamna mwenye taarifa kamili ila Utashi
You talked about belief being the strongest thing humans can come across. At the very least that requires clarification.
But in my long standing tradition of immanent critique, even if I grant you that (belief is the strongest thing humans can come across), that fact is unimportant since it does not help us find truth. In fact it hinders us from finding truth.
If one has strong belief in the Bible or the Quran, one will dismiss, excuse or justify obvious and glaring contradictions in these books. One's belief is blinding one from the facts.
The strength of belief does not equal to the truth of belief ( the truth of what is believed to be true).
One may have a very strong belief, but a wrong one. That is, one may strongly believe something to be true, while it is not true.
To me, mere belief is unimportant. Because it is not necessarily truth.
I am more interested in truth than belief.
That is why religious connotations are unimportant to me, in so far as they are based on belief and not facts.
Factually, no one can prove God (omnipotent, omniscient, all benevolent)exists.
Because such a God does not exist.
The existence of such a God presents a logical contradiction at the conceptual level in a way that forbids such a God to be actualized.
So, if I am reading you correctly, you are examining belief as a tool of finding truth, and finding it wanting and lacking, are you not?A human mind is itself a residual of memories and it uses memories for self-equilibrium (self well-being). So it's true also to say it feels more secure basing on memories rather than the actual intelligence (not the cunning intelligence we mostly perceive which is based on the past experience(knowledge etc..)).
belief is predominantly ahead of Truth in human minds as it is also a mere memory (past based and static). So the mind likes to feel more secure by attaching to something it already knows.
And lastly Truth must be dynamic (moving) and to see/know it one must have clarity and clarity means eliminating the mind's tendency to attach itself to memories (beliefs inclusive) at the moment of actual perception (and that is difficult right? because you're a human being).
Kuna mahali amewahi kuelezea yeye huyo Mungu anaetaka kum-prove yeye ni yule anaeshikika au ni yule ambae ni kama ile pumzi yake iliyotoweka hakuwahi kuiona kuishika wala kuiagiza apendavyo? Wafuasi wake kwanza watupe mwanga hapa, maana yeye "kile kilichomleta,kikampa nguvu kwenye mwili wake wa ku-transform mawasiliano yake hadi kuweza kuwasiliana na watu wake wa karibu kimeshamchukua"(maana hakua na uwezo hata wa kuongea isipokua mashine ndio ilimsaidia)Mungu angekuwepo,(mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote) tusingekunya wala kufa.
Tunakunya na kufa kwa sababu Mungu hayupo.
Unaelewa hilo?
Pumzi inapimika, inaeleweka kimantiki, inaelezeka kibaiolojia, huwezi kuilinganisha na Mungu asiyepimika wala kueleweka kimantiki.Kuna mahali amewahi kuelezea yeye huyo Mungu anaetaka kum-prove yeye ni yule anaeshikika au ni yule ambae ni kama ile pumzi yake iliyotoweka hakuwahi kuiona kuishika wala kuiagiza apendavyo? Wafuasi wake kwanza watupe mwanga hapa, maana yeye "kile kilichomleta,kikampa nguvu kwenye mwili wake wa ku-transform mawasiliano yake hadi kuweza kuwasiliana na watu wake wa karibu kimeshamchukua"(maana hakua na uwezo hata wa kuongea isipokua mashine ndio ilimsaidia)
Wanaopinga uwepo wa Mungu mbona hawapingi uwepo wa pumzi/roho zao? Pumzi/roho haishikiki, haionekani, haigusiki..lakini ipo, utofauti upo kwenye uwezekano wa ku-prove..jinsi maini au utumbo tumboni mwetu usivyoweza ku-prove pumzi yetu...haimaanishi sisi tunaweza kum-prove Mungu ambae ni "roho"(spirit)
Ukijifanya una uelewa kupitiliza yeyote basi kipo kitu kidogo tuu utakipitiliza na hutakiona na hata ukiambiwa umekivuka utabisha kwakua unataka kuhakikishia watu upo makini kuliko wengine.
Wafuasi wake watuambie uhai/roho ya Hawkins iko wapi kwa sasa...jee ni Kaburini?? Kwenye mifupa yake itakayooza taratibu kwa miaka kadhaa au imeelekea kwenye blackhole...au. Kwenye mchanga alimozikwa? Au ime-disappear km proton na electron to nowhere..
Swala la time ni "imaginary count" to somewhere per motion/movement"
Kwenye hyo blackhole anayoisifia time hai-exist vizazi vijavyo vitakua na uwezo wa kutengeneza "count intruments" za kwenye blackhole na Hawkins atakua "wrong proved"
Nawasilisha mkuu..
So, if I am reading you correctly, you are examining belief as a tool of finding truth, and finding it wanting and lacking, are you not?
Surely if you really want to take it far and philosophical, you can't be conclusive about absolutely anything, not even about not being conclusive about absolutely anything.Belief is a broad subject in its usage, referring to the subject of this thread "as an acceptance/denial of existence of GOD", to believe one must have already known the concept of "GOD" (past knowledge based). So to reach/find the concept/belief (that is to follow/believe in GOD) it must be static (because if its dynamic one can never reach it).
so belief is PAST BASED and STATIC. On the other hand Truth is not past based and its not static (it moves with the moment). To most Truth is GOD and vice versa, but to really seek the Truth and to know it one must have a clear mind which doesn't involve any past or future knowledge.
lastly, one can never be conclusive about belief (its only possible to convince oneself) because one is watching through a small hole and presume to be watching the whole/totality (which is the Truth). YOU CAN'T BE CONCLUSIVE ABOUT THE POSSIBLITY OF GOD EXISTANCE.
Surely if you really want to take it far and philosophical, you can't be conclusive about absolutely anything, not even about not being conclusive about absolutely anything.
This is not helpful at all.
I used to think the world of abstract ideas, such a mathematics, was exempt from this tyranny of not being conclusive, and then I read Kurt Godel and his incompleteness theorems, and found out that even mathematics is subject to this issue, per Godel.
One can prove a triangle has 180 degrees, but if you go further, the foundations if that proof are fiat Euclidian postulates.
In physics, there is an even deeper argument that, reality as a non relative entity does not exist. Einstein's Relativity points to this. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle points to this. The famous double slit experiment pounts to this.
So, my conclusion is, context is everything. The world can be explained much better in terms of probability than certainty. This is why even weather prediction is done in terms if percentage of chance of rain etc.
Say I am an engineer. I want to build a bridge that can carry a 40 ton lorry. I can build this bridge by using a pi value with only 5 decimal places, but pi in decimal does not end. So, should the engineer stop building the bridge because the true value if pi in decimal cannot be computed? No, if the pi value in decimal up to 5 decimal plaves is sufficient to build the needed bridge, that us pi in that context, even as we know the true value of pi is more complex.
What is my point?
The "you can't be conclusive" bandwagon will leave you in analysis paralysis. We have to be conclusive, albeit with nuance, context, probability, nargin of error, etc.
And in that context, we can say this.
We have two contexts. The logical and the non/extra logical.
From a logical context, God (omnipotent, omniscient, all benevolent, creator of all) does not exist, because we can show contradictions in the concept if existence of that God, essentially proof by cintradictiin that that God does not exist. The problem of evil/Epicurean Paradox shiws that ckearly.
From a non/ extra logical context, God can not exist either, because the mere proposition "God exists" is a logical proposition. The mere concept of existence is a logical concept.
So, either way, God does not exist.
So, there is no point for you to write this, at all. Is there?Sir you see.. all knowledge is the past, limited and fragmented (all your theories inclusive). In fact knowledge is in contrast with what is happening right at this ongoing moment so as a result there are conflicts in oneself and in the community.
to be conclusive is a mind tendency to feel secure/assured which is an action of escaping from the fact/Truth. A human mind is made to reject fact/Truth and would rather circumvent in order to maintain its comfortable state. So knowledge is a mind's tool for obscuring fact/Truth.
so you see sir, as long as you're attached to knowledge your perception is also hindered.
and.. YES we can't be conclusive about all propositions no matter how plausible or paradox they can be.. because a human mind is limited by knowledge..
All products of knowledge are also limited, bridges, cars, buildings, etc..
there's.. knowledge is important when used between human and non-human because non-human is limited (like operating a device (device is limited)). But knowledge has no place between human and human (as this discussion's interactions) because it is basically the root of all conflicts and misunderstandings in the world.So, there is no point for you to write this, at all. Is there?
Don't you see that your assertion that knowledge has no place between human and human, while you are writing to me, a human, imparting your knowledge , is at the very least a contradiction?there's.. knowledge is important when used between human and non-human because non-human is limited (like operating a device (device is limited)). But knowledge has no place between human and human (as this discussion's interactions) because it is basically the root of all conflicts and misunderstandings in the world.
If we're to see the Truth (GOD or something else) we must be simultaneously at the same wavelength of actual/pure perception (living) and that can be achieved only when our mind is free from our past knowledge.
jumping onto conclusion which is "GOD doesn't exist" put you aside from a real discussion which can only be carried out by the unbiased attentive participants. The real discussion is "DOES GOD EXIST?" but still its silly even to ask the latter for human mind is also deluded by curiosity.
Ni kweli kuwa tuna umeme in our bodies, Lakini jeElectricity is power.
We have electricity in our bodies.
Is God electricity?
"imparting knowledge" is your idea which is brought about by an abstraction..Don't you see that your assertion that knowledge has no place between human and human, while you are writing to me, a human, imparting your knowledge , is at the very least a contradiction?
Kukuonesha maana yake nini? Umeme unaweza kupimwa, umeme ulio ndani ya mwili unaweza kupimwa, vipimo vinaweza kuonekana.Ni kweli kuwa tuna umeme in our bodies, Lakini je
Unaweza kunionesha ?
But you are not answering my question, if you are right, the whole exercise of communicating knowledge between humans should be futile, fruitless and one to be avoided?"imparting knowledge" is your idea which is brought about by an abstraction..
But you are not answering my question, if you are right, the whole exercise of communicating knowledge between humans should be futile, fruitless and one to be avoided?
Yet you are here contradicting that very notion!
But you are still contradicting yourself, even with that arbitrary distinction of what is between humans and what is not.yes all knowledge communicated between human beings about human beings are futile, fruitless and source of all human conflicts.. for example.. Tribalism which can lead to fragmentation and that can go to the level of the Nations (a glorified tribalism). How? well its so obvious right?
all knowledge communicated between human beings about non human beings like going to school to learn how to become an engineer, how to drive a car etc..