If God doesn't exist, then for you even what is said in the Qur'an or Bible must be useless. If so, why do you deny God's existence, but accept the existence of evil, which you say are both in the Qur'an and Bible? Why do you accept the existence of evil, but deny the existence of God, while both are given in the scriptures?I started by talking about the idea of the omnipotent, omniscient and all benevolent God.
Prominent examples are the Gods of the Quran and Bible.
From that perspective, evil is the sin he will punish evildoers for. As narrated in the Quran and Bible.
If there was no evil, there is no ground for punishing sinners and evildoers.
If that God punishes evildoers/sinners, for thw wvil thwy havw done, then, from that narrative, evil must exist.
But that proposition begs the question.
Why would an all knowing, all loving and all capable God create a universe in which evil is possible, when he could have simply created a universe in which evil is unknown and not even possible?
This question presents an unsolved contradiction.
Do you know what "immanent critique" is?If God doesn't exist, then for you even what is said in the Qur'an or Bible must be useless. If so, why do you deny God's existence, but accept the existence of evil, which you say are both in the Qur'an and Bible? Why do you accept the existence of evil, but deny the existence of God, while both are given in the scriptures?
You can't deny the existence of God, which is affirmed in the scriptures and accept the existence of evil, which is affirmed in the scriptures also, while for you what the scriptures say is just the creation of humans. You can only deny or accept both, but not only one and not the other.Do you know what "immanent critique" is?
Do you know what "immanent critique" is?You can't deny the existence of God, which is affirmed in the scriptures and accept the existence of evil, which is affirmed in the scriptures also, while for you what the scriptures say is just the creation of humans. You can only deny or accept both, but not only one and not the other.
How is 'immanent critique' related to God's non-existence and evil's existence if you claim the scriptures, which provide for the compatibility of God with evil, are the creation of humans? If you claim the scriptures are the creation of humans, then you can't even talk about God and evil, for even these don't exist. So, you have either to say God and evil exist or God and evil do not exist.Do you know what "immanent critique" is?
Do you know what is "immanent critique"?.How is 'immanent critique' related to God's non-existence and evil's existence if you claim the scriptures, which provide for the compatibility of God with evil, are the creation of humans? If you claim the scriptures are the creation of humans, then you can't even talk about God and evil, for even these don't exist. So, you have either to say God and evil exist or God and evil do not exist.
Will you be happier if I tell "I don't know it"?Do you know what is "immanent critique"?.
Answer the queation.
You are looking ridiculous.
It is not about me being happier, it is about you following the logic of the discussion.Will you be happier if I tell "I don't know it"?
Explain it if you want to and leave it if you don't.It is not about me being happier, it is about you following the logic of the discussion.
I knew you did not know what is "immanent critique".
Because you were asking questions like a person who does not follow the logic of the discussion, because he does not understand what is immanent critique.
So, can you be clear and drop the "Will you be happy if I tell you..." ?
Can you say straight up, that you do not know what "immanent critique" is, so you can be educated and gain the understanding necessary to follow the logic of my narrative and criticism?
Do you know what is "immanent critique" ?Explain it if you want to and leave it if you don't.
I can't be manipulated. Are you the one who coined a phrase 'immanent critique'?Do you know what is "immanent critique" ?
I am ready to explain, but not before you state, categorically, unmitigatedly, without reservation or caveat, that you do not know what "immanent critique means".
Do you what it means?Do you know what is "immanent critique"?
Why is that question so hard for you to answer straight up?
Do you know what it means?"Do you what it means? " is not even proper English.
Unaweza kujiona unaweza sana kuliko wenzako kumbe huna lolote, I knew what I meant to say it's a mankind, and you thought I had mistakenly written, no,I real meant,I despised your role model ,to me he's just an object and not a mankind, that's why I said "it's"."It's a mankind called Hawkins".
Bwahahaha.
Andika Kiswahili tu.
Tragedy of the commons.
Ni kichaa kinakutesaKumradhi kwa kuonekana hivyo.
Lakini kuna wakati najibishia hata mimi mwenyewe.
Kuna mawazo nawaza, halafu nawazua.
Aristotle na Francis Scott Fitzgerald walisema hiyo ni alama ya werevu wa hali ya juu.
Sipendi kuangalia mtu anayesema jambo.
Ukiangalia mtu, utakubali jambo baya kutoka kwa mtu unayemuheshimu na kukataa jambo zuri kutoka kwa mtu usiyemuheshimu.
Napenda kuangalia jambo linalosemwa.
Nilikubali au nilikatae kwa uzuri wa hoja.
Si kwa sababu limesemwa na fulani.
Kama ni kweli kichaa kinanitesa, huo nao ni ushahidi mwingine Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hayupo.Ni kichaa kinakutesa
Leo ndo nimekujua IQ yako ni ndogo mno,ndo maana badala ya kujibu maswali Yangu ulikimbilia kukosoa lughaNimesema zaidi ya hayo, mbona unataka kuninukuu kidogo nje ya muktadha?
Unaelewa kwamba hata kama huyo Mungu hajaumba huu ulimwengu, ulimwengu umeumbwa na shetani, lakini Mungu karuhusu shetani aumbe ulimwengu, bado huyo Mungu ana final responsibility?
Kuna kinachoweza kuwa bila ruhusa ya Mungu wako?
Kama hakuna, atakosaje responsibility kwa yanayotokea duniani?
Kama kipo, je Mungu huyo ni muweza yote kweli?