Why Facebook Co-Founder Mark Zuckerberg is an Atheist?

[Cureone]

Hoja gani nimeshindwa kuijibu?

Kati yangu niliyeomba uthibitisho wa kuwepo mungu mara lukuki hapa na kukosa jibu, bali kupata matusi tu, na aliyeshindwa kujibu na kuishia kutukana, nani kashindwa kujibu hoja?

Matusi kwako ndizo hoja zenyewe, hoja zako ni matusi kwetu, lakini sisi ni waelewa tunachagua kiini cha hija na kukujibu.
Wewe umeamua kujificha kwenye kioo endelea usisumbue kids I ushahidi wakati Ishmael kakupa ushahidi zaidi ya mahitaji yako.
Umepewa uthibitisho kwa makusudi unafumba macho usiuone then unaendelea kujaza server jf kwa kutaka upewe kile ambacho tayari unacho.
Acha utoto

 

[Kiranga]

Matusi kwako ndizo hoja zenyewe, hoja zako ni matusi kwetu, lakini sisi ni waelewa tunachagua kiini cha hija na kukujibu.
Wewe umeamua kujificha kwenye kioo endelea usisumbue kids I ushahidi wakati Ishmael kakupa ushahidi zaidi ya mahitaji yako.
Umepewa uthibitisho kwa makusudi unafumba macho usiuone then unaendelea kujaza server jf kwa kutaka upewe kile ambacho tayari unacho.
Acha utoto

Kama hoja zangu ni matusi, kqa nini mnanijibu?

Hoja zangu mnazipwnsa ndiyo maana mnanijibu.

Zingekuwa matusi msingenijibu.

La aivyo mnapenda kutukanwa.

Uthibitisho kwamba mungu yupo ni jini? Niambie kifupi kwa maneno yako.

Imeshajibu imekuwaje mungu mwenye uwezo wote, ujuzi wote, upendo wote na uwepo pote aumbe ulimwengu unaowezekana kuwa na mabaya na uovu kama huu?

 

[Cureone]

First of...

Believing is tied to exiatence. Questioning the existence is not believing it dies not exists, itvis merely not believing it exists.

I do not put much stock in believing at all, be it believibg god exists or god does not exist.

I would rather know.

Huwezi kujadili habari za kuwapo kwa mungu as a fact bila kuniingilia mimi nisiyekubali kwamba mungu yupo.

Siwezi kutoa ushahidi kwamba kitu ambcaho hakipo hakipo kama wewe usivyoweza kutoa alama za vidole za mwizi ambaye hayupo na hakuwahi kuwepo, kwa sababu hayupo. Utaanzaje kutoa ushahidi kwamba kisichopo hakipo?

Mungu wenu, hususan huyu mjuzi wa yote, muweza yote, aliye pote na mwenye upendo wote hayupo.

Angekuwepo asingeumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya yanawezekana kama huu.

Sasa nimegunduwa ndiyo sababu unasema unatukana wakati wewe ndiye unaanza kutukana kwa lugha ya kilimbukeni.
Huwezi kutoa ushahidi kwamba kitu ambacho hakipo "hakipo"...
Lugha ya kijinga Sana. Umekuaje kwamba kuna "kitu ambacho hakipo" umejuwaje kwamba mwizi hayupo na hakuwahi kuwepo ? Mtu anasema ameibiwa na anakuonyesha mlango uliovunjwa au sehemu palipokuwa na kitu anachosema kimeibiwa "Huyo mwizi ambaye hayupo" ni mwizi lakini hayupo au hakuna kitu kinaitwa mwizi ?
Kisichopo hakipo ndiyo mashokolo gani ? Binadamu wewe ? Hadi umesema kisichopo umejuaje juu ya kisichopo ? Kabla hujafikia kusema hakipo ? Wewe unatumia nini kutafakari ?
Turudi kwenye kiroja chako cha "mwizi" asiyewahi kuwepo...
Huyo "mwizi " ni kitenzi ? Nomino au ni mdudu gani ?
Unasikitisha Sana na mifano mfu uitoayo...
Huyo Mungu uliyempa sofa zote sawa
Ulitaka aumbe ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani tofauti na huu uliopo ambao mabaya yanawezekana...
1.mabaya ndiyo mambo gani ?
2.Ni nini kipimo cha hayo mabaya na namna ya kuyatambua ?
3. Mambo yaitwayo mabaya ni nini rejea yake ? Wapi naweza kuyapata hayo mabaya ?
4. U wapi mfano wa ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani ?

 

[Cureone]

Facts are overrated.

That's your newest excuse? As predicted, you offered no evidence or arguments for non theism.

Massive evidence and arguments for God exist.

Here is an outline of some evidences for God argued in world class debates. Nobody has defeated any one of them.

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists contingently rather than nothing. Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (non theism) – or an act of will.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
Hata Kama hutaki utasoma.
Bonyeza ignore list for your safety plz

 

[Kiranga]

Sasa nimegunduwa ndiyo sababu unasema unatukana wakati wewe ndiye unaanza kutukana kwa lugha ya kilimbukeni.
Huwezi kutoa ushahidi kwamba kitu ambacho hakipo "hakipo"...
Lugha ya kijinga Sana. Umekuaje kwamba kuna "kitu ambacho hakipo" umejuwaje kwamba mwizi hayupo na hakuwahi kuwepo ? Mtu anasema ameibiwa na anakuonyesha mlango uliovunjwa au sehemu palipokuwa na kitu anachosema kimeibiwa "Huyo mwizi ambaye hayupo" ni mwizi lakini hayupo au hakuna kitu kinaitwa mwizi ?
Kisichopo hakipo ndiyo mashokolo gani ? Binadamu wewe ? Hadi umesema kisichopo umejuaje juu ya kisichopo ? Kabla hujafikia kusema hakipo ? Wewe unatumia nini kutafakari ?
Turudi kwenye kiroja chako cha "mwizi" asiyewahi kuwepo...
Huyo "mwizi " ni kitenzi ? Nomino au ni mdudu gani ?
Unasikitisha Sana na mifano mfu uitoayo...
Huyo Mungu uliyempa sofa zote sawa
Ulitaka aumbe ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani tofauti na huu uliopo ambao mabaya yanawezekana...
1.mabaya ndiyo mambo gani ?
2.Ni nini kipimo cha hayo mabaya na namna ya kuyatambua ?
3. Mambo yaitwayo mabaya ni nini rejea yake ? Wapi naweza kuyapata hayo mabaya ?
4. U wapi mfano wa ulimwengu ambao mabaya hayawezekani ?

First thing first, nimejua kitu hakipo kwa sababu kinajipinga chenyewe kuwapo.

An inherent contradiction.

You cant have a square circle in Euclidean geometry.

Because that is an inherent contradiction. A square is not a circle and a circle is not a square and one thing cannot be both.

If you hear someone telling you that this is a square circle you immeduately know that this is bonkum.

Similarly, you can't have a god who knows all, is capable of all, is all loving and exists everywhere who created this world full of evil and suffering.

Because that is just as self contradicting as a square circle.

 

[Cureone]

Facts are overrated.

What is the SI unit for facts to avoid overrating

 

[Kiranga]

What is the SI unit for facts to avoid overrating

Why should you want to avoid overrating?

You are mired in ignorance anyway.

 

[Cureone]

First thing first, nimejua kitu hakipo kwa sababu kinajipinga chenyewe kuwapo.

An inherent contradiction.

You cant have a square circle in Euclidean geometry.

Because that is an inherent contradiction. A square is not a circle and a circle is not a square and one thing cannot be both.

If you hear someone telling you that this is a square circle you immeduately know that this is bonkum.

Similarly, you can't have a god who knows all, is capable of all, is all loving and exists everywhere who created this world full of evil and suffering.

Because that is just as self contradicting as a square circle.

"Square circle in Euclidean geometry"
Similarly God in what ?
Physics, biology or chemistry ?
Are the so called " contradicting " found in geometry or where else ?
Uwezo wako wa kutafakari Una matatizo makubwa mno ?

Kwa hiyo kuwepo kwa mlango uliovunjwa na kukosekana kwa home theater mahala pake ni self contradicting na MTU kusema kuna mwizi aliingia kwake na kuiba ?

 

[Kiranga]

"Square circle in Euclidean geometry"
Similarly God in what ?
Physics, biology or chemistry ?
Are the so called " contradicting " found in geometry or where else ?
Uwezo wako wa kutafakari Una matatizo makubwa mno ?

Kwa hiyo kuwepo kwa mlango uliovunjwa na kukosekana kwa home theater mahala pake ni self contradicting na MTU kusema kuna mwizi aliingia kwake na kuiba ?

Huwezi kuwa na a square circle kama vile usivyoweza kuwa na mungu muweza yote na mwenye mapenzi yote aliyeumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya yanawezekanika.

Vyote viwili vina inherent contradictions.

Square haiwezi kuwa circle hapohapo.

Mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hawezi kuumba ulimwengu wenye kuweza kuwa na mabaya hapohapo.

These two cases carry within them inherrent contradictions.

 

[Cureone]

Huwezi kuwa na a square circle kama vile usivyoweza kuwa na mungu muweza yote na mwenye mapenzi yote aliyeumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya yanawezekanika.

Vyote viwili vina inherent contradictions.

Square haiwezi kuwa circle hapohapo.

Mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hawezi kuumba ulimwengu wenye kuweza kuwa na mabaya hapohapo.

These two cases carry within them inherrent contradictions.

Wewe tatizo kubwa ni uwezo wako wa kutafakari
Ngoja ninukuu andiko lako nikuonyeshe namna uwezo wako wa kufikiri ulivyo na malyenge...

"Mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hawezi kuumba ulimwengu wenye kuweza kuwa na mabaya hapohapo"

Umeandika Mwenye uwezo wote halafu ukaandika HAWEZI KUUMBA...
Sasa Kama anao uwezo wote ni kwa nini unasema ...hawezi...
Kama anao uwezo wote, maana yake anaweza kuumba ule ambao maovu yanawezekana na ule ambao maovu hayawezekani pia !
Na habari ya Upendo wote pia vile vile anaweza kuutumia Upendo kwa kadri ya tasfiri yake ya Upendo na sio mtazamo wa Kiranga
Hapa umechemsha Mkuu.

Upendo ni Upendo kwa mujibu wa nini ?
Maana pembe Tatu duara ni kwenye Euclidean geometry

Hili swali narudia ni Mara ya tatu hujibu. Ni swali la msingi Sana kadri ya mjadala ulivyo ...

 

[Kiranga]

Wewe tatizo kubwa ni uwezo wako wa kutafakari
Ngoja ninukuu andiko lako nikuonyeshe namna uwezo wako wa kufikiri ulivyo na malyenge...

"Mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hawezi kuumba ulimwengu wenye kuweza kuwa na mabaya hapohapo"

Umeandika Mwenye uwezo wote halafu ukaandika HAWEZI KUUMBA...
Sasa Kama anao uwezo wote ni kwa nini unasema ...hawezi...
Kama anao uwezo wote, maana yake anaweza kuumba ule ambao maovu yanawezekana na ule ambao maovu hayawezekani pia !
Na habari ya Upendo wote pia vile vile anaweza kuutumia Upendo kwa kadri ya tasfiri yake ya Upendo na sio mtazamo wa Kiranga
Hapa umechemsha Mkuu.

Upendo ni Upendo kwa mujibu wa nini ?
Maana pembe Tatu duara ni kwenye Euclidean geometry

Hili swali narudia ni Mara ya tatu hujibu. Ni swali la msingi Sana kadri ya mjadala ulivyo ...

Kama mungu mwenye uwezo qote anaweza kuumba vitu vinavyojipinga then hakuna haja ya kutaka kuelewa kwamba yupo au hayupo wala kujadikiana.

Utajadikiana vipi wakati mungu muweza vyote anaweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao hata yeye mwenyewe hayupo halafu mimi na wewe wote tukawa sawa.

Mungu akawa yupo, kwa sababu yupo, halafu hapo hapo hayupo, kqa sababu kaumba ulimwengu ambao ywye hayupo kabisa?

Ukitaka kumuelezea mungu kwa kutumia kanuni zinazoeleweka ni muhimu ukubali kanuni hizo.

Kama vile "logical consistency".

Hywezi kusema mungu ni muweza vyote out of logical consistency, kwa sababu hata "vyote" ni a logical statement.

La sivyo utajikuta umekubali kwamba mungu hayupo.

Kwa sababu mungu muweza vyote anaweza hata kujiua, na hawezi kuthibitisha kwamba anaweza kujiua kabla ya kujiua.

Na labda mungu wako muweza vuote kashajiua zamani tu.

 

[mbogyo]

we kiranga ama kweli we una kiranga kwa lugha ya kwetu neno kiranga mana yke ni balaa au janga so kwa namna ulivyo na hizo itikadi zako za kifirauni exactly wewe ni kiranga

 

[Cureone]

Kama mungu mwenye uwezo qote anaweza kuumba vitu vinavyojipinga then hakuna haja ya kutaka kuelewa kwamba yupo au hayupo wala kujadikiana.

Utajadikiana vipi wakati mungu muweza vyote anaweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao hata yeye mwenyewe hayupo halafu mimi na wewe wote tukawa sawa.

Mungu akawa yupo, kwa sababu yupo, halafu hapo hapo hayupo, kqa sababu kaumba ulimwengu ambao ywye hayupo kabisa?

Ukitaka kumuelezea mungu kwa kutumia kanuni zinazoeleweka ni muhimu ukubali kanuni hizo.

Kama vile "logical consistency".

Hywezi kusema mungu ni muweza vyote out of logical consistency, kwa sababu hata "vyote" ni a logical statement.

La sivyo utajikuta umekubali kwamba mungu hayupo.

Kwa sababu mungu muweza vyote anaweza hata kujiua, na hawezi kuthibitisha kwamba anaweza kujiua kabla ya kujiua.

Na labda mungu wako muweza vuote kashajiua zamani tu.

Huu utakuwa mjadala wa kilevi perse...

"Mungu muweza wa vyote anaweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao mwenyewe hayupo"
Hata kuelewa unataka kuwakilisha ujumbe gani ni shida...
Uwezo wote ni kuumba na kuwepo ?
Mungu anaweza kujiua !!!???? Wewe unamzungumzia "hakuna Mungu "
Wakati hoja ni kuhusu "MUngu yupo "
Ndiyo sababu unajichanganya sanaa
Maana umeammua kujichanganya changanya ili upate pa kujishikia
Kanuni zinazoeleweka...
Zinaeleweka na nani ...?
Nani kazipa mamlaka kanuni hizo ?

Umeleta kitu kipya "logical consistence "
Logic ni kitu gani ?
Ni kwa namna gani "logic " zinamhusu Mungu ?

 

[Kiranga]

Huu utakuwa mjadala wa kilevi perse...

"Mungu muweza wa vyote anaweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao mwenyewe hayupo"
Hata kuelewa unataka kuwakilisha ujumbe gani ni shida...
Uwezo wote ni kuumba na kuwepo ?
Mungu anaweza kujiua !!!???? Wewe unamzungumzia "hakuna Mungu "
Wakati hoja ni kuhusu "MUngu yupo "
Ndiyo sababu unajichanganya sanaa
Maana umeammua kujichanganya changanya ili upate pa kujishikia
Kanuni zinazoeleweka...
Zinaeleweka na nani ...?
Nani kazipa mamlaka kanuni hizo ?

Umeleta kitu kipya "logical consistence "
Logic ni kitu gani ?
Ni kwa namna gani "logic " zinamhusu Mungu ?

Of course utakuwa mjadala wa kilevi.

Kwa sababu umekubali kuwepo kwa mungu anayeweza yote.

Anayeweza kufanya a square circle.

Akaumba ulimwengu ambao yeye mqenyewe hayupo.

Ambao utamfanya awepo na asiwepo kwa wakati huohuo.

Hapo ndipo upumbavu wa habari nzima ya "mungu muweza yote" unapojitokeza.

 

[Ishmael]

Matusi kwako ndizo hoja zenyewe, hoja zako ni matusi kwetu, lakini sisi ni waelewa tunachagua kiini cha hija na kukujibu.
Wewe umeamua kujificha kwenye kioo endelea usisumbue kids I ushahidi wakati Ishmael kakupa ushahidi zaidi ya mahitaji yako.
Umepewa uthibitisho kwa makusudi unafumba macho usiuone then unaendelea kujaza server jf kwa kutaka upewe kile ambacho tayari unacho.
Acha utoto

Huyo kijana anafahamu kuwa hana uwezo katika debate zaidi ya ubishi na ligi. In fact, hakuna non theist anaye weza kupinga argument ya moral katika existence ya Mungu.

Kivipi aseme ametuknwa wakati hakuna kitu kama hicho kwenye sayansi yake?

I asked for his arguments and evidence justifying non theist belief. 100% of the non theists claiming to have arguments and evidence (rather than being honest) have in fact failed to produce any such thing - including Kiranga and Nyani Ngabu.
There is a real problem with non theist intellectual foundations. I'm just providing the platform for non theists to expose themselves.

 

[Ishmael]

That's your newest excuse? As predicted, you offered no evidence or arguments for non theism.

Massive evidence and arguments for God exist.

Here is an outline of some evidences for God argued in world class debates. Nobody has defeated any one of them.

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists contingently rather than nothing. Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (non theism) – or an act of will.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
Hata Kama hutaki utasoma.
Bonyeza ignore list for your safety plz

Kiranga hawezi kugusa hapa. Maana anajua kuwa alicho karirishwa hakijibu hii mada.

 

[Ishmael]

First thing first, nimejua kitu hakipo kwa sababu kinajipinga chenyewe kuwapo.

An inherent contradiction.

You cant have a square circle in Euclidean geometry.

Because that is an inherent contradiction. A square is not a circle and a circle is not a square and one thing cannot be both.

If you hear someone telling you that this is a square circle you immeduately know that this is bonkum.

Similarly, you can't have a god who knows all, is capable of all, is all loving and exists everywhere who created this world full of evil and suffering.

Because that is just as self contradicting as a square circle.

How hypocritical to give only these ridiculous choices which apply to almost nobody as answers and then call yourself "Truth Matters".

It's the sickest joke I've heard all day.

 

[Ishmael]

Huwezi kuwa na a square circle kama vile usivyoweza kuwa na mungu muweza yote na mwenye mapenzi yote aliyeumba ulimwengu ambao mabaya yanawezekanika.

Vyote viwili vina inherent contradictions.

Square haiwezi kuwa circle hapohapo.

Mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hawezi kuumba ulimwengu wenye kuweza kuwa na mabaya hapohapo.

These two cases carry within them inherrent contradictions.

Your failure to distinguish belief in God (ontology) from a zillion differing views ABOUT God (epistemology) or god (mythology) is your failure, not mine.

Do multiple different views of a car accident multiply the number of car accidents?

 

[Ishmael]

Huu utakuwa mjadala wa kilevi perse...

"Mungu muweza wa vyote anaweza kuumba ulimwengu ambao mwenyewe hayupo"
Hata kuelewa unataka kuwakilisha ujumbe gani ni shida...
Uwezo wote ni kuumba na kuwepo ?
Mungu anaweza kujiua !!!???? Wewe unamzungumzia "hakuna Mungu "
Wakati hoja ni kuhusu "MUngu yupo "
Ndiyo sababu unajichanganya sanaa
Maana umeammua kujichanganya changanya ili upate pa kujishikia
Kanuni zinazoeleweka...
Zinaeleweka na nani ...?
Nani kazipa mamlaka kanuni hizo ?

Umeleta kitu kipya "logical consistence "
Logic ni kitu gani ?
Ni kwa namna gani "logic " zinamhusu Mungu ?

Your question is unintelligible gibberish. You haven't answered a single question - much less provided any arguments or evidence to warrant your belief.

 

[Ishmael]

"Square circle in Euclidean geometry"
Similarly God in what ?
Physics, biology or chemistry ?
Are the so called " contradicting " found in geometry or where else ?
Uwezo wako wa kutafakari Una matatizo makubwa mno ?

Kwa hiyo kuwepo kwa mlango uliovunjwa na kukosekana kwa home theater mahala pake ni self contradicting na MTU kusema kuna mwizi aliingia kwake na kuiba ?

Another excellent insight. They are actually appealing to nothing as a cause for something. It's actually worse than magic. They have no magician, no plausible agency or mechanism. They just gloss over it with empty words while exempting themselves from the rules of reason or sufficient cause to explain the effect ....in the name of 'science'. There is nothing scientific there - just philosophical Naturalism.