schlumberger
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 15, 2012
- 890
- 351
And those who disbelieve and deny Our signs - those will be companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally." (Qur'an 2: 39)
Asikusumbue huyo mkuu,nimemuuliza maswali kachemka kunijibu,hajui hata anapinga nini na ana support nini,yupo yupo tu.Nisaidie kujua nini hasa chanzo cha kuwepo ulimwewngu. ?
You shouldn't be despaired about the truth of existence of God,apart from having proof from the Holy Bible and scientific theories for atheists,there are simple questions which both atheists and God's believers must comply in common.Atheists and theists(mostly religionists) cannot contemplate things within the same dimensions unless they make way for a bit compromise,only then there can be hope for a healthy discussion. Since every single argument and counter-argument will eventually hit a dead end,as one will rely mostly on scientific theories to prove the non-existence of God while the other will use holy books and nature as seen by naked eyes as an anchor to all reasoning.
I once read a book titled ''Life-How did it get here by Evolution or Creation'',they did their best to use ample scientific evidences to attribute the existence of life to creation. I can confidently say that,when your are open to both ideas without any predisposed assertions(which is next to impossible) there is a possibility to at least understand how one can argue for and against the existence of God.
On a more serious note,it is hard to fathom that a single big "partially-regulated" explosion has lead to all well-designed and detailed universe forms even after factoring in time,energy and expansion. I consider myself a fairly science guy but the Big Bang Theory has very questionable premises.I just can't wrap my head around some of them.
Of all the paradoxes,life is the biggest of them all.
Moreover, nobody has ever seen nature to prove its existence...You shouldn't be despaired about the truth of existence of God,apart from having proof from the Holy Bible and scientific theories for atheists,there are simple questions which both atheists and God's believers must comply in common.
God is unseen and so does to the nature, for this sake,how can you believe in nature which is unseen and deny the existence of God who also is unseen?
Therefore, the atheists have no stronger reasons to argue other than exposing their idiotism.
But people see things which they claim were extracted by nature and they refuse to recognise the existence of God who is unseen as well as nature...Moreover, nobody has ever seen nature to prove its existence...
Mfano rahisi ni hapo hapo kwenye number line hujui number ndogo zaidi upande wa negative since negativity ni infinity na hujui number kubwa vilevile upande wa positive since positivity ni infinity,kwanini basi hujui,hujui kwasababu haina mwisho itaendelea kukuwa tu kubwa daima (no end)na itaendelea kuwa ndogo zaidi daima(no beginning) lakini hiyo hali imeshikiliwa na zero as a center ,zero defines nothing lakini hiyo zero ndo source ya both infinities both kwenye positivity na negativity.kwahiyo mahesabu yanaprove logically thinking limitation kuwa tutajua mbali zaidi kuhusu yajayo ila haiwezakani kujua mwisho ya yajayo zaidi ya kianzilishi chenyewe ambacho ni zero since ndo kimeanzisha, same applies upande wa pili tutafika mbali sana kuhusu wapi ulimwengu umeanza lakini hatutofika mwanzo maana hakuna mwanzo ,anaejua mwanzo pekee ni zero maana ndo mwanzilishi.kwa upeo wangu najua GOD EXISTS NA YUPO KWENYE EMPIRE YAKE NDANI YA ZERO,na zero ni nothing,but within nothing there is SOMETHING.Kwa nini unafikiri mimi najua?
Naweza kutojua jibu sahihi la swali, lakini nikipewa jibu lisilo sahihi, nikajua hili si sahihi.
Nikijua kwamba square root ya 2 ni lazima iwe ndogo kuliko 2, hata kama sijui square root ya 2 ni nini, mtu akiniambia square root ya 2 ni 10, nitakataa hilo jibu.
Nitajua si la kweli.
Kwa sababu square root ya 2 ni ndogo kuliko 2, na 10 ni kubwa kuliko 2, hivyo, 10 haiwezi kuwa square root ya 2.
Moreover, 10 ni square root ya 100, 100 si 2.
Jibu la Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote kuumba ulimwengu ni sawa na jibu la 10 ni square root ya 2.
Hata kama sijui square root ya 2, jibu la 10 najua si la kweli. Lina contradict number line.
Hata kama sijui ulimwengu ulianzaje, jiu la kwamba uliumbwa na huyo Mungu si la kweli.
Jibu lina contradict logical consistency.
Naweza kulijua jibu la uongo hata kama sijajua jibu la ukweli ni nini.
Na katika kutafuta ukweli, natakiwa ku eliminate majibu ya uongo yote ili kupata jibu la ukweli.
Jiu la Mungu liwe eliminated, tutafute jibu la ukweli.
You are very fun indeed!Do you even know what "immanent critique" is?
Or are you just throwing words around like a parrot?
Kazi yake ni kurukaruka tu mara hili mara lile - hana lolote isipokuwa tu kwamba anataka kulazimisha kuwa yeye tu ndiye anayejua kuchangia vizuri. Hopeless guyWewe mbona umeshindwa kuthibitisha uwepo wa nature?
I didn't want to answer it because there was no reason for it.You are not answering the question I asked.
And if there is a question you are answering, I did not ask it.
Hujathibitisha Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote yupo.Kazi yake ni kurukaruka tu mara hili mara lile - hana lolote isipokuwa tu kwamba anataka kulazimisha kuwa yeye tu ndiye anayejua kuchangia vizuri. Hopeless guy
I didn't want to answer it because there was no reason for it.
Nilicho mgundua huyu mtu ni kuwa yeye anajitahidi sana kupinga dalili za uwe wa mungu lakini yeye hatuthibitishii yeye ni nani hasa ndiyo chanzo cha vyote ulimwenguni.Asikusumbue huyo mkuu,nimemuuliza maswali kachemka kunijibu,hajui hata anapinga nini na ana support nini,yupo yupo tu.
You shouldn't be despaired about the truth of existence of God,apart from having proof from the Holy Bible and scientific theories for atheists,there are simple questions which both atheists and God's believers must comply in common.
God is unseen and so does to the nature, for this sake,how can you believe in nature which is unseen and deny the existence of God who also is unseen?
Therefore, the atheists have no stronger reasons to argue other than exposing their idiotism.
How do you know God actually exists, and ia not just a product of your imagination?Most of atheists believe that everything can be understood through scientific units of measurement,such notion cannot be applied in explaining the existence of God.
Thus,leading to a myriad of never-ending failed attempts if you try to do some explaining in quantifying God(egg and chicken scenario).
1. Huwezi kuthibitisha uwepo wa Mungu kwa kutumia sayansi (inayotaka empirical evidence). Ila kama unataka ninaweza kusema kwamba, kama kila kilichopo ulimwenguni kilisababishwa na Big Bang, then Big Bang ilisababishwa na Mungu ambaye ndiyo chanzo cha kila kitu.Hujathibitisha Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote yupo.
Kwa sababu huwezi kuthibitisha.
Kwa sababu hayupo.
Kama unabisha, thibitisha yupo.
How do you know God actually exists, and ia not just a product of your imagination?
Like Santa Claus or something fictitious like that?
What is your epistemology?Am religious but not an extremist so i wont go out of my way to explain the whole concept of belief in God since the belief is more on a personal level and my personal views are not sets of definite rules.
But then again all the theories that are used as pillars of atheism are based on assumptions and suppositions(figments of imagination of some ancient scientists like Darwinism or Big Bang).
Can you substantiate without a doubt,with your own thinking that these scientists where not hallucinating in some inexplicable realms of science fiction? Mind you I believe in science but not some fringe-like theories.
Hujathinigisha uwepo wa Mungu kwa njia yoyote ile.1. Huwezi kuthibitisha uwepo wa Mungu kwa kutumia sayansi (inayotaka empirical evidence). Ila kama unataka ninaweza kusema kwamba, kama kila kilichopo ulimwenguni kilisababishwa na Big Bang, then Big Bang ilisababishwa na Mungu ambaye ndiyo chanzo cha kila kitu.
2. Sayansi is limited to the material aspect of reality, but what is beyond the material, it is silent and it's there that we need other disciplines to explain the beyond such as natural theology or metaphysics. If we force science to prove God's existence, then what we are doing is scientism (stretching science beyond its scope of competence).
What is your epistemology?