Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

[James Comey]

Hawking ambaye ndiye kitovu cha mjadala huu anasema time ikianzia baada ya bingbang. Wewe unasema time haijawai kuwepo kabisa ni illusion , inamaana Hawaking alikuwa na illusion. Kwa msingi kwamba Hawking alikuwa na illusion una discredit kila kitu alichokisema yaani Mungu, time and space kama nakuelewa vizuri.

 

[lifecoded]

Hawking ambaye ndiye kitovu cha mjadala huu anasema time ikianzia baada ya bingbang. Wewe unasema time haijawai kuwepo kabisa ni illusion , inamaana Hawaking alikuwa na illusion. Kwa msingi kwamba Hawking alikuwa na illusion una discredit kila kitu alichokisema yaani Mungu, time and space kama nakuelewa vizuri.

nothing called time exists....

no different between past,present an future...all three exist at the same incidence...

Matter is the product of space time collapse...

Mimi nasema hakuna kitu kinachoitwa muda( time) ...its an illusion of your mental prediction...

 

[schlumberger]

Contradictions za Quran umeziruka kama hujaziona.

How should I take you seriously?

AL-HAMDULILLAH! HUO NI USHINDI MKUBWA. ALLAHU AKBAR.

**JAA L-HAKU WAZAHAKAL - BAATWIL. INNAL-BAATWIL KAANA ZAHUUKA** - Arabic transcription!.
meaning: (Haki imekuja na batili imeondoka, na mara zote batili Ni yenye kuondoka).

ANZISHA MADA MPYA HALAFU IITE CONTRACDICTIONS ZA QUR'AN. TUKUTANE HUKO.
jitahidi uwe vizuri kihoja maana Qur'an ni nyepesi sana kueleweka kwa wale wenye akili zilizo sawa!

Usidhani Watanzania Hatuna uwezo wa kufikiri na kujenga HOJA ZENYE AKILI eti kwa vile omelets hoja kwa kiingereza. Ona, Paloja na vijitabu unavyovitegemea na wnazuoni wako, nimeweza kuvunjilia mbali hoja zote kwa msaada wa Allah.

MUNGU YUPO KWA HOJA NILIZOZIJENGA!
NAOMBA AJITOKEZE MWINGINE KAMA KIRANGA NIMPELEKE DARASANI. KIRANGA KAPWAYA

 

[schlumberger]

Kwa maelezo haya unamaanisha kurani ina sapoti Bing bang na siyo handcraft ya Mungu mwenyewe ama nini?

Well James,
Sio kwamba Qur'an ina-support Big Bang, Mwenyezi Mungu ndani ya Qur'an (21:30) amesema wazi kuwa Yeye ndiye chanzo cha Mlipuko huo ambao asili yake ilikuwa ni kitu kimoja (singular) kama tufe - ambayo baadaye sasa wanasayansi wamekuja kuiita phenomenon hiyo karma The BiG Bang. Hiyo ndiyo asili ya kupatikana Ulimwengu huu.

Nilitoa mfano wa fataki Jana, kama uliuelewa utaelewa vizuri mada, Ukilipua fataki vinatokea vidimlight vingi vinavyosambaa angani na kuleta Furaha na mwako mzuri kwa watazamao. Sasa akili ya kiranga na Hawking wanamtafuta mfyatua fataki ndani ya fataki kisha wanasema huyo mfatua fataki hayupo.
Akili gani hiyo??? Hivi muda wa kufyatuka hiyo fataki ndiyo muda (uhai wa Kuishi) wa mtengeneza fataki??
Akili gani hiyo???

Baada ya huo mlipuko sasa ndipo ikaja Handcraft. a.k.a Kupangilia mambo - Sanaa ya Allah. Wewe Dunia (sayari) zunguka jua, mwezi zunguka dunia, Jua (nyota) zunguka Galactic centers (Qur'an 21:33) nk, nk, nk.
Kuwe na nchi kavu, kuwe na bahari, maziwa na mito. kuwe na uoto (miti, majani, kuwe na wanyama, ndege, kuwa na mtu wa kutawala hivi vyote nk) - Kama tunavyosoma katika Biblia Takatifu mwanzo 1:1.

Naamini utanielewa na namuomba Mola wangu akupe ufahamu mzuri wa mambo!

 

[Kijana kijana]

AL-HAMDULILLAH! HUO NI USHINDI MKUBWA. ALLAHU AKBAR.

**JAA L-HAKU WAZAHAKAL - BAATWIL. INNAL-BAATWIL KAANA ZAHUUKA** - Arabic transcription!.
meaning: (Haki imekuja na batili imeondoka, na mara zote batili Ni yenye kuondoka).

ANZISHA MADA MPYA HALAFU IITE CONTRACDICTIONS ZA QUR'AN. TUKUTANE HUKO.
jitahidi uwe vizuri kihoja maana Qur'an ni nyepesi sana kueleweka kwa wale wenye akili zilizo sawa!

Usidhani Watanzania Hatuna uwezo wa kufikiri na kujenga HOJA ZENYE AKILI eti kwa vile omelets hoja kwa kiingereza. Ona, Paloja na vijitabu unavyovitegemea na wnazuoni wako, nimeweza kuvunjilia mbali hoja zote kwa msaada wa Allah.

MUNGU YUPO KWA HOJA NILIZOZIJENGA!
NAOMBA AJITOKEZE MWINGINE KAMA KIRANGA NIMPELEKE DARASANI. KIRANGA KAPWAYA

Kiranga anajidai kasoma bibilia mkuu kwa quran ni mtupu kama kazaliwa leo.

Atakusumbua tu huyo hata alif hajui bali anakopi na kupest tu wallahi kiranga ana vihoja vya kitoto tu.

Nakuambia tena lazima akimbie mkuu akianzisha mada ya kuhusu mgoangano wa quran.

Kwa sababu kiarabu ndio msingi wa quran,sasa ikiwa hajui kiarabu na misingi yake kama vile نحو ،صرف، n.k

Sasa kiranga atayajulia wapi haya?

Ni boga tu huyo jamaa.

 

[Makanyaga]

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer | October 17, 2018 04:23pm ET

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

In a new book that was published posthumously, Stephen Hawking, who died in March, wrote that it is impossible for God to exist in our universe.


From his desk at Cambridge University and beyond, Stephen Hawking sent his mind spiraling into the deepest depths of black holes, radiating across the endless cosmos and swirling back billions of years to witness time's first breath. He viewed creation as a scientist, and when he was called to discuss creation's biggest puzzles — Where do we come from? What is our purpose? Are we alone? — he answered as a scientist, often to the chagrin of religious critics.

In Stephen Hawking's final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing life's oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God? [Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]

Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.

• 

Credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images


"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.
"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.

That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

This argument will do little to persuade theistic believers, but that was never Hawking's intent. As a scientist with a near-religious devotion to understanding the cosmos, Hawking sought to "know the mind of God" by learning everything he could about the self-sufficient universe around us. While his view of the universe might render a divine creator and the laws of nature incompatible, it still leaves ample space for faith, hope, wonder and, especially, gratitude.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."
Originally published on Live Science.

cc James Comey

By the way, what is the rhetoric difference between the statements 'No Possibility' of God and No God? Why Hawking 's assertion or calim, that there is No Possibility' of God instead of, that of "No God"? You know why? Because he is uncertain!

 

[Pure_sapiens]

What's invisible that creates what's visible.Kama hautuwezi kuthibitisha uwepo wa Mungu kwa milango yetu ya fahamu haifanyi Mungu asiwepo.
Couse and effect low inabainisha kuwa baadhi ya vitu/mambo tunaweza kuthibitisha uwepo wake kwa kuangali effects zake the same kwa uwepo wa Mungu.
Tunaweza kumthibitisha Mungu kwa ku focus kwenye sign zake.
God existed before time and space.God create time and space so unaweza kumthibitisha vipi katika vitu alivyoviumba.Mungu yupo juu vyote hivi

 

[Magobe T]

Unaelewa kwamba hayo unayoyaita maandiko matakatifu yamejaa contradictions na hivyo hayawezi kuwa matakatifu?

1. Lugha ni kwa ajili ya mawasiliano.
2. Mawasiliano yanakamilika pale ambapo mlengwa anapopata ujumbe uliokusudiwa.
3. Maandiko matakatifu yamejitosheleza kwenye ujumbe wake na walengwa wa ujumbe huo wanaupata bila upungufu wowote (bila contradictions).
4. Wale ambao hawana imani au wanasoma maandiko matakatifu bila jicho la imani (kwa matakwa yao) hawapati ujumbe wake, hivyo wanachoona ni kitu tofauti. Ni kama mtu anayemwonyesha mwenzake kwa kidole "mwezi ule..." halafu yule anayeelekezwa abaki anaangalia kidole as if mwezi uko kwenye hicho kidole wakati kidole kilitumika tu kumwelekeza anayeelekezwa kwamba kama atafuatisha kidole kule kinapoelekeza ataona mwezi anaoonyeshwa.
5. Waandishi walikuwa wanadamu na hivyo wametumia lugha ya kibinadamu ambayo ina limitations na hizi limitations zitakuwepo tu as long as we remain humans. Remember: God created a perfectable world - a world capable of being perfected through our creative contribution (best practices) kama vile environmentally-friendly conservation practices etc.
6. Kwa sababu hiyo, wanaosoma biblia na "kubaki kuangalia kidole wakidhani kama ndio mwezi" (out of context) (kama nilivyoeleza hapo Na 4) hawawezi kupata ujumbe wake mpaka hapo watakaposoma na kutafakari maandiko matakatifu kwa macho ya imani na siyo science (in our context) na hivyo wanachoweza kuona ni hizo wanazoita 'contradictions' maana (kwa kutumia mfano wa mwezi, wamebaki kwenye kidole na hawajaweza kuona mwezi wanaoonyeshwa.
7. Hivyo basi, ukitaka kusoma maandiko matakatifu kwa kuyaelewa, yasome kwa jicho la imani kwa kuyatafakari na kuelewa ujumbe wake na siyo kwa jicho la science maana science haiwezi kuwa njia sahihi ya kusoma maandiko matakatifu, kuyatafakari na kuyaelewa.

 

[Tractus]

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe
By Brandon Specktor, Senior Writer | October 17, 2018 04:23pm ET

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

In a new book that was published posthumously, Stephen Hawking, who died in March, wrote that it is impossible for God to exist in our universe.


From his desk at Cambridge University and beyond, Stephen Hawking sent his mind spiraling into the deepest depths of black holes, radiating across the endless cosmos and swirling back billions of years to witness time's first breath. He viewed creation as a scientist, and when he was called to discuss creation's biggest puzzles — Where do we come from? What is our purpose? Are we alone? — he answered as a scientist, often to the chagrin of religious critics.

In Stephen Hawking's final book "Brief Answers to Big Questions," published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing life's oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God? [Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]

Hawking's answer — compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate — should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.

• 

Credit: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images


"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
Hawking's explanation begins with quantum mechanics, which explains how subatomic particles behave. In quantum studies, it's common to see subatomic particles like protons and electrons seemingly appear out of nowhere, stick around for a while and then disappear again to a completely different location. Because the universe was once the size of a subatomic particle itself, it's plausible that it behaved similarly during the Big Bang, Hawking wrote.
"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.

That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

This argument will do little to persuade theistic believers, but that was never Hawking's intent. As a scientist with a near-religious devotion to understanding the cosmos, Hawking sought to "know the mind of God" by learning everything he could about the self-sufficient universe around us. While his view of the universe might render a divine creator and the laws of nature incompatible, it still leaves ample space for faith, hope, wonder and, especially, gratitude.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."
Originally published on Live Science.

cc James Comey

There are many logical flawson his explanation, one to think that because there was no time, then Cause does not exist. One of the biggest mistake scientists seem to make is to ask philosophical questions then trying to seek scientific explanation.
Astonishing thing about this great scientist, he seemed to believe in the existence of aliens which he never had any evidence if they were existing but he never believed in the existence of God which is more plausible.

 

[Tractus]

Mungu angekuwepo,(mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote) tusingekunya wala kufa.

Tunakunya na kufa kwa sababu Mungu hayupo.

Unaelewa hilo?

Really? Are the things you said a proof that God does not exist? How could death be a reason that God does not exist. I do not see any casual relation of the things you mentioned and the existence of super natural being.

 

[Tractus]

• Jamii Intelligence

The most powerful arguments for the Existence of God!!

• Thread starterTractus
• Start dateMay 7, 2016

TagsNone Edit

WATCH
•••
T
Tractus
Member
May 7, 2016
#1
I have been reading the arguments of people who deny the Existence of God and I recognize their counter-arguments do not hold water, in fact, they are mostly confusing and illogical . Now, the following are the arguments, but I don't claim to be mine cuz they are arguments offered by prominent philosophers in the history of human knowledge. All in All, I wanna defend these arguments against any criticism offered.
Ontological argument,

“There is, therefore, or there can be conceived, a subject of all perfections, or most perfect Being. Whence it follows also that He exists, for existence is among the number of his perfections.”

Second, Internal Truth argument which states that
The gist of the argument is that truths are part of the contents of minds, and that an eternal truth must be part of an eternal mind… There must be a reason for the whole contingent world, and this reason cannot itself be contingent, but must be sought among eternal truths.”

This leads to claim, “But a reason for what exists must itself exist; therefore eternal truths must in some sense, exist, and they can only exist as thoughts in the mind of God.”

QuoteReply
ReportEdit
Likes:Baba Kiki
[IMG]https://www.jamiiforums.com/data/avatars/m/332/332965.jpg?1499056748[/IMG]
Einstein Newton
JF-Expert Member
May 8, 2016
#2
Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume

LikeQuoteReply
Report
Likes:Jimena and Kifyatu
[IMG]https://www.jamiiforums.com/data/avatars/m/332/332965.jpg?1499056748[/IMG]
Einstein Newton
JF-Expert Member
May 8, 2016
#3
Tractus said:
There is must be reason for whole contingent world

But reason for what exists must itself be exist
This chain of reasoning whose validity you seem to support cannot withstand even facile logical analysis

Argument from contingency which acts as a base of your Eternal truth argument attests that

"If there is reason for existence of contingent cosmos then that reason must come from God

Therefore God exists"

But if everything that exists must have a reason for its existence then what is reason for God's existence?

If there is reason for God existence then that reason must come from something else other than God possibly a being greater than God

But if there is no reason for God's existence then why does the contingent universe need reason for its existence?

LikeQuoteReply
Report
Likes:Jimena and Kifyatu
T
Tractus
Member
May 8, 2016
#4
einstein newton said:
Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume
Click to expand...
einstein newton said:
Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume
Click to expand...
The ontological argument is based on the claim that God is necessary Being. You seem to deny a different form of ontological argument which is derived from the idea of Aristotle of the uncaused cause!! the argument I develop is quite different from such idea.
Basically the argument, I advocate, asserts that every contingent have sufficient reason for its existence. By contingent Being, I mean it is possible for that being to exist or not, but if contingent being exists must have a reason for its existence and its reason must come outside itself. For example, if Peter exists, then it must because of his parent. If this true then, it possible to think of totality of contingent Beings like the universe which its reason cannot come from itself rather it should come from outside. Thus why the reason of the existence of the totality of contingent must be a necessary Being who is God. That is why I say the whole argument rest on the principle of sufficient reason and not the traditional ontological argument of St. Anslem.

Now, Let us scrutinize the objection you raised against the ontological argument. you said

"If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume
But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume"
The ontological argument is valid and strong one, the objection raised cannot suffice because smallest elementary particle is not a necessary Being rather a contingent one, its sufficient reason to exist must be outside itself. In fact, it is possible for such Being to exist or not but since it does, the reason for its existence must be from outside itself. Therefore, your argument is irrational and invalid as far as ontological argument based on the principle of sufficient reason is concerned.b

 

[schlumberger]

By the way, what is the rhetoric difference between the statements 'No Possibility' of God and No God? Why Hawking 's assertion or calim, that there is No Possibility' of God instead of, that of "No God"? You know why? Because he is uncertain!

Forumyangu ,Makanyaga, Magobe and Tactus - Appreciated your comments,

The statement "There is no possibility of God in our Universe" is like to say "There is no possibility of human being in fireworks (firecrackers)". which is true!.
Human being cannot fit in!

"Dubious minds to think inside the box only"!

 

[schlumberger]

Kiranga anajidai kasoma bibilia mkuu kwa quran ni mtupu kama kazaliwa leo.

Atakusumbua tu huyo hata alif hajui bali anakopi na kupest tu wallahi kiranga ana vihoja vya kitoto tu.

Nakuambia tena lazima akimbie mkuu akianzisha mada ya kuhusu mgoangano wa quran.

Kwa sababu kiarabu ndio msingi wa quran,sasa ikiwa hajui kiarabu na misingi yake kama vile نحو ،صرف، n.k

Sasa kiranga atayajulia wapi haya?

Ni boga tu huyo jamaa.

Namsubiria aanzishe hiyo mada tukutane huko…...
Hatuamini kibubusa.

 

[Kiranga]

Kiranga akianzisha dini naweza kuwa muumini. Sababu sitahitaji kujieleza sana kuhusu dini yangu, ukiniuliza maswali nakupelekea kwa mwenyewe.

Napenda anavyokomaa

Yani hata Mungu ukishaona anahitaji maelezo emngi sana, tafsiri za kutoka Kirabu au Kilatini, Kiyunani, ki Amharic na Kiingereza, ujue huyo si Mungu.

Ni tamaduni za watu tu unalishwa matangopori.

 

[Kiranga]

From Stephen Hawking book. He wrote;

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."
"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Let us think the above statement of his:
He says, since the universe was a singular thing, time itself could not have existed before the bang. If that is the case to him he then draws his conclusion that there was no time for a cause (creator) to exist in.

That's is interesting story!

Let us take an example of a FATAKI (Firecracker, fireworks, rockets, banger, maroon - name it you like) which we normally see people explode in the sky during new year or during celebration of world cup. It is a result of singular balloon or singular object. But when ejected it explodes and scatter all over the place with dim lights of different colors looking pretty good for viewers.

Now Stephen Hawking is looking the causer (creator) from inside the balloon/firecrackers.

QUESTIONS:
**Was the creator who made firecrackers present inside???
**If the time has started after firing the firecracker (fataki), is this time related to the firecracker or the one
who made firecrackers/fataki???
**Was the firecracker made itself or there is someone who made it??
**The creator of the firecracker is subjected with the time of the firecracker??
**Does the firecracker exist or they does not exist??
**Does the maker of firecracker's exists or he does not exist?
**If you deny he does not exist, does this exempt the fact that he does exist???????????

Qur'an 64:3
He created the heavens and earth in truth and formed you and perfected your forms; and to Him is the [final] destination.

Contradictions za Quran hujazijibu.

 

[Kiranga]

Uyo Stephen Hawkins kwa sasa ni marehemu.

Una lingine?

Kifo cha mtu yeyote kinathibitisha Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hayupo.

Angekuwepo, kifo kinachotenganisha wapendanao kisingekuwepo.

Unaelewa hilo?

 

[Kiranga]

Kwa maelezo haya unamaanisha kurani ina sapoti Bing bang na siyo handcraft ya Mungu mwenyewe ama nini?

Hawa wengine hata hawajui wamesimama wapi.

Nimempa contradictions za Quran kasepa kama Ikangaa, utafikiri hajaziona.

 

[Kiranga]

nothing called time exists....

no different between past,present an future...all three exist at the same incidence...

Matter is the product of space time collapse...

Mimi nasema hakuna kitu kinachoitwa muda( time) ...its an illusion of your mental prediction...

The illusion of time is created by speeds that are lower than the speed of light.

To a photon moving at the speed of light, the past, present and the future are all rolled into one, there is no flow of time.

In theory, if a particle were to surpass the speed of light, it would move backwards in time.

Time as an absolute entity does not exist, it is the product of relative motion. Einstein's Theory of Relativity showed us that.

 

[Kiranga]

AL-HAMDULILLAH! HUO NI USHINDI MKUBWA. ALLAHU AKBAR.

**JAA L-HAKU WAZAHAKAL - BAATWIL. INNAL-BAATWIL KAANA ZAHUUKA** - Arabic transcription!.
meaning: (Haki imekuja na batili imeondoka, na mara zote batili Ni yenye kuondoka).

ANZISHA MADA MPYA HALAFU IITE CONTRACDICTIONS ZA QUR'AN. TUKUTANE HUKO.
jitahidi uwe vizuri kihoja maana Qur'an ni nyepesi sana kueleweka kwa wale wenye akili zilizo sawa!

Usidhani Watanzania Hatuna uwezo wa kufikiri na kujenga HOJA ZENYE AKILI eti kwa vile omelets hoja kwa kiingereza. Ona, Paloja na vijitabu unavyovitegemea na wnazuoni wako, nimeweza kuvunjilia mbali hoja zote kwa msaada wa Allah.

MUNGU YUPO KWA HOJA NILIZOZIJENGA!
NAOMBA AJITOKEZE MWINGINE KAMA KIRANGA NIMPELEKE DARASANI. KIRANGA KAPWAYA

Contradictions za Quran umeziruka kama hujaziona.

How should I take you seriously?

 

[Kiranga]

By the way, what is the rhetoric difference between the statements 'No Possibility' of God and No God? Why Hawking 's assertion or calim, that there is No Possibility' of God instead of, that of "No God"? You know why? Because he is uncertain!

Ni sawa na kusema"hapa hapawezekani kunyesha mvua" na kusema "hapa hapanyeshi mvua".

Habari ya kuelezea possibility ina nguvu zaidi.

Yani unaweza kwenda sehemu hainyeshi mvua, ukasemahapa hainyeshi mvua, leo. lakinikesho mvua ikanyesha.

Kwa sababu, ingawa leomvua hainyeshi,lakini possibility ya kunyesha mvua ipo.

Lakini ukiambiwa there is no possibility, mtu siotu kasemahakuna Mungu lakini kuna conditions Fulani zikiwepo inawezekana Mungu akawepo, hapoamesiliba kabisa kwamba potentiality ya kuwepo Mungu haipo kabisa

Na huyo ujue haandikihivyokivivu, hayomaneno anayatoa katika hesabu na deep understanding of the universe.

Yani Hawking sio tu anaangalia ulimwengu huu uliopo, anaangalia mpaka na potential different universes.

Kwa maana nyingine hapo ni kwamba, inawezekana Mungu akawepo akawa kaumba ulimwengu ulio tofauti na huu (kwa mfano ambao hauna mabaya) lakinihuu haujaumbwa na Mungu.

Na kwangu mimi, nikikumbuka maneno ya Martin Luther King, ambayo Mungu anatakiwa kuwa kayajua vizuri kabla ya MARTIN Luther King

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote, angekuwepo, asingeumba kiulimwengu cha hapa duniani kina mabaya, na kingine hukopeponi hakina mabaya.

Ndiyo maana nikasema Mungu huyu angekuwepo angetupa bata mwanzo mwisho, kungekuwa hakuwezekani kuwepo na mabaya duniani.

Mabaya tunayoyaona ni sababu ulimwengu huu haujaumbwa na Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote, angeumba yeye ulimwengu ungekuwa mzuri sana tena sana zaidi ya ulivyo, huyo Mungu ni mzuri sana jamani kuumba ulimwengu ambao unaweza kuwa na mabaya kama huu.

Hilo hamlioni?