Who created God? Who made him? Where did he come from?

Kayinga junior said:
Mie mmeshanicha phemba nalugha mchanganyiko hapanimepa kwabahati mbaya.Mungu amekuwa shemeji yenu?Nauliza!
Click to expand...

Wewe unafikiri Mungu hana shemeji? Ashera alikuwa mke wa El, ambaye ni kaka yake pia. Wewe unamjua El?
 
Sangarara said:
Ndio kile kile nilichokieleza, huku ukiwa unaelewa hoja yangu ya msingi ni nini. umeachana na hoja hiyo umerukia kwenye mambo mengine.
Click to expand...

Hoja yako ya msingi ni kwamba sina focus, nimekubembeleza karibu ya kukuramba mavumbi yaliyo katika viatu vyako unioneshe ni wapi na vipi nimekosa focus ili nitengeneze njia zangu na kuongoka.

Umeshindwa. Unarudi kwenye majibu ya jumlajumla.

Unaanza kunifanya nielemee kwenye upande mwingine wa maneno yangu.

Kwamba siye mimi ninayekosa focus, ni wewe unaye focus too much mpaka unapoteza context na big picture view.

Sio mimi ninayeleta too much information, ni wewe ambaye unaleta too little information.

Kwa anayekuja, anayekwenda anaonekana anakuja.
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
Urahisi wake ukoje?
Click to expand...

Aksante, Cha msingi ni approach ya kuprove mambo hayo, ugumu unakuja pale watu wanapotaka kuprove mambo ya mungu kutoka kwenye inferences zao, ukiangalia hata kwenye post aliyoniquote kiranga apo chini utaona anasema "Wanafalsafa wamejadili proofs za mungu, mpaka wengine wamesema haiwezekani kuwa "proved". yaani utumie approach za watu ambao kwa kiwango kikubwa tu hawaamini mambo ya mungu kuprove uwepo wake, inawezekana vipi.

Approach sahihi ni hii.
1. Kwanza, Mungu Mwenyewe ndio anatakiwa approve uwepo wake, kutokea kwenye Biblia, kuna maandishi ambayo yanaonyesha kwamba yuko tayari kuwa challenged anasema "njooni tusemezane" na maeneo mengine mengi tu.

2. Pili, tukubali kwamba, kutokea kwenye Biblia, Yeye Mwenyewe Mungu athibitishe kutokea kwenye maandiko yake juu ya yale yote yanayobishaniwa juu yake, uwepo wake, nani kamuumba n.k

Ukifikia hapa, basi inabidi watu kama kiranga wawe tayari kuwasilikiza wale wanaompresent Mungu wanahoja gani, kwa approach zao wenyewe, approach zinazoeleweka lakini sio za kulazimishana na kusingizia imani kama wengi wanavyofanya.

then it becomes simple to prove it.
 
Sangarara said:

Approach sahihi ni hii.
1. Kwanza, Mungu Mwenyewe ndio anatakiwa approve uwepo wake, kutokea kwenye Biblia, kuna maandishi ambayo yanaonyesha kwamba yuko tayari kuwa challenged anasema "njooni tusemezane" na maeneo mengine mengi tu.
Click to expand...

:biggrin1::biggrin1: Kusema useme wewe kwamba ni rahisi kuthibitisha chochote kile kuhusu mambo yake halafu unakuja kusema tena kwamba ni jukumu lake yeye (mungu huyo) mwenyewe kuthibitisha uwepo wake? Hivi unaona hata unavyojichanganya ama huoni?

2. Pili, tukubali kwamba, kutokea kwenye Biblia, Yeye Mwenyewe Mungu athibitishe kutokea kwenye maandiko yake juu ya yale yote yanayobishaniwa juu yake, uwepo wake, nani kamuumba n.k
Click to expand...

Nimejitahidi kujaribu kukuelewa lakini nimeshindwa!

Ukifikia hapa, basi inabidi watu kama kiranga wawe tayari kuwasilikiza wale wanaompresent Mungu wanahoja gani, kwa approach zao wenyewe, approach zinazoeleweka lakini sio za kulazimishana na kusingizia imani kama wengi wanavyofanya.
Click to expand...

Hapa ndo umenipoteza kabisa.

then it becomes simple to prove it.
Click to expand...
Ndugu, unajua hata unachokiongelea?
 

Tuondoe Ubishi.
Niko tayari kuprove uwepo wa Mungu, uko tayari kunisikiliza? kama uko tayari hakikisha una access na Biblia kwa sababu ndiyo nitakayoitumia, nataka uwe na biblia ili kama nitafanya quotation yoyote kutoka huko na wewe uisome mwenyewe ili kupunguza wingi wa maneno.

Infact nitatumia Biblia na Logic kutegemeana na basis of proof nitakayoitumia. Kama uko tayari nieleze.
 
Nakujibu kwa ujumla, somewhere kwenye post yangu nimetumia neno wanaompresent Mungu, unless uniambie ulitegemea niliposema Mungu Mwenyewe approve basi ulitegemea yeye mwenyewe aje hapa kuanza kuweka posts JF. I will do this Job diligently on his behalf.
 
Ni nini kwangu bora kuifanya zaidi ya ujiepusha na mabaraza ya watu wenye mizaha?

Kwa kumpigia Mungu magoti, dunia yaweza kunipigia magoti, lkn kwa kutafuta sifa mbele za watu wasiokufahamu zaidi ya kufahamu jina lako tu hapa JF kiasi niseme Mungu hayupo, HIYO HAPANA. Nalog off
 

:gossip: he doesn't get it either I swear
 
Dah, maswali mengine naogopa, maana sijui huwa unalenga nini...?
 
Sangarara said:
Tuondoe Ubishi.
Niko tayari kuprove uwepo wa Mungu,
Click to expand...

Bila ubishi hakuna elimu. Kwanza kabisa tuondoe kuondoa ubishi. Ukisema tuondoe ubishi, unasema tuondoe elimu.

Ukisha "prove" uwepo wa mungu utakuwa usha prove kutokuwepo kwake. Kwa sababu moja ya sifa za mungu (in the Judeo-Christian traditions) ni kwamba yuko beyond what can be proved. Ndiyo maana dini ni suala la imani, si suala la ujuzi.

uko tayari kunisikiliza?
Click to expand...

Nishakusikiliza na kukosoa kabla hujaanza kujieleza.

kama uko tayari hakikisha una access na Biblia kwa sababu ndiyo nitakayoitumia,
Click to expand...

Biblia mimi siiamini, kwa nini unilazimishe proof ambayo iko based kwenye biblia?

nataka uwe na biblia ili kama nitafanya quotation yoyote kutoka huko na wewe uisome mwenyewe ili kupunguza wingi wa maneno.
Click to expand...

Biblia ziko nyingi, unatumia ipi? Na kwa nini hiyo?

Unasoma biblia aliyo i edit Constantino? Ambayo nilishaisoma from genesis to revelation and backwards from revelation to genesis by age 10?

Vipi kuhusu the lost books of the bible?

Infact nitatumia Biblia na Logic
Click to expand...

Biblia ni kitabu cha imani, hakiendani na logic.Ukitaka kutumia logic kwenye imani utachemsha kwa maana utachanganya yasiyochamganyika.

kutegemeana na basis of proof nitakayoitumia.
Click to expand...

Imani haina proof. Ukisha prove kitu kinatoka kwenye imani na kuwa ujuzi.

Kama uko tayari nieleze.
Click to expand...

Nilikuwa tayari tangu nadundika Ocean Road Hospital siku ya kwanza nilivyozaliwa.
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
More so reasonable than indecisive, I would argue.
Click to expand...

Reason would suggest that, at some point, the answer to this question is indeterminable.

Just as any proof, when subjected to enough scrutiny, is bound to yield indeterminables. The very method of determining the determinability of a hopeful determinable makes the determinability even more indeterminable. 100% determinability is a Selassian illusion, to be pursued, but never attained (and even that statement is not 100% determinable, that's goes to show).Heisenberg demonstrated that, partly due to mechanics, but more importantly, it seems that the fabric of universe revolves around indeterminability and probability, not certainty.

The question then becomes, what is the acceptable margin of error on either side, and what is more reasonable and converging to the widely supported notions, by multiple discrete, reviewed points.

And then one ought to make a decision on whether god exists or does not.

Fence sitting (whether due to apathy or lack of enough knowledge) is not reasonable, it is shying away from the question.

If one was to adopt fence sitting as the more reasonable approach, no question would be settled.

Not that of getting up in the morning.

Not even 1 + 1 = 2.
 
Nyani Ngabu said:
More so reasonable than indecisive, I would argue.
Click to expand...


Kwenye threead moja a life after death, Kiranga stood firm that no one knows the truth about that. But the way he insists that there's no creator..........kinda like double standards to me
 
God made man, man made money, money made man mad.
 
Kiranga said:
Fence sitting (whether due to apathy or lack of enough knowledge) is not reasonable, it is shying away from the question.
Click to expand...

Negative! Not being able to determine one way or the other doesn't mean ending the quest to determine. For the inquiring minds it just means more work is needed. More work means perhaps a change of methods, etc.

If one was to adopt fence sitting as the more reasonable approach, no question would be settled.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not fence sitting. It just the same as saying what is put out there as proof is not sufficient enough to make a determination either way, therefore, a redoubling of efforts is perhaps needed while keeping an open mind that maybe one day someone will be able to conclusively determine it.

Look how long it took for the Poincare's conjecture to be proven. Had people said it wasn't possible for it to be proven, Grigori Perelman probably would have gave up on it long before he was able to prove it.

So I say it is reasonable to keep an open mind and that's where the reasonableness comes in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…