Babu wa Loliondo "avuliwa nguo"

[mediaman]

Preachy, condescending and holier than thou.
Freakin preacher believes in a soul, where is the soul? How can you prove that there is a soul?

Physics question! You want to prove it scientifically?
It has been tried. In 1907, a Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Mass would put the beds of dying patients on scales, so see if there was any difference in weight at the exact moment of death. There was. The numbers varied somewhat, and the sample size was very small, but the average was something like 3/4 of an ounce (21 grams). Now, even the doctor said more studies would need to be done, and that his sample size, and methods were not great, but it remains the only study like it. However, this was an attempt to see if there were any changes at death from the death itself. Not proof of a soul, but proof that "something" leaves the body at the moment of death. While the experiment is not conclusive, it is interesting.....

Your soul is you. Your physical body is you. Think of it as a literal "first person" environment where you (being a soul) relay messages to yourself (housed in flesh) and are relayed messages (from exterior forces and from your own flesh when it is trying to tell you things like "I am hungry", "I am in danger", "This is not healthy", "I am sick", etc) when you are alive without there being any delay. Your physical body houses your soul until your flesh dies and then you depart from your body no longer as flesh and spirit continue to exist as an intelligence of spirit form alone.

 

[Kiranga]

We can only explain the God's existence by the existence of that chance which you claim to be the cause of our existence in this world and the universe itself. If that chance exist then that chance is what we call God; now tell me how you would refute the existence of that "CHANCE" you claim to cause all these creation. Science is the proof of hypotheses the moment you fail to reject the null hypotheses it does not mean whatever you want you trying to ascertain is the truth; its a fact which can after sometime be changed if we advance in scientific experimentation depending on the available technology at that particular time. For example during the earlier days its was found by Mendel the father of genetics that gene multiplication is only possible using game cells until we came to this error where we now know that reproduction is also possible through somatic cells. So you would see that science never come into truth but only facts based on findings which is limited to our brain capacity which make us able to come with desired technology to answer practical life problems.

Different from science spirituality is the only branch of human understanding which has given us an idea that creation does not start with law of energy/matter as science claims but through vision which later on through words come into visible manifestation of physical mater and that invisible thinks lead to permanent visible things call it mater where by its not possible to take them back into invisibility. Science is actually lying as its principal law of energy states that energy can never be created nor destroyed but can only be transformed into various form; now tell me does the energy given by sun goes back to sun? If only this can not be explained by the law which claim to explain something which in reality it does not explain it comprehensively how can you call that a law? The law explains only the energy which is taped from the sun but can not explain the source of that particular energy which is the SUN. Actually the Sun creates energy thats why it is never exhausted of that specific type of energy its kindly surplying/providing to the universe ever since that chance happened to create this universe. Look how human mind can fail to balance nature; the energy which is freely given by sun science has failed to balance its rotation and now we are going up and down crying for global warming. Its the same science which you praise has highly contributed to the disruption of the balanced nature showing science is very inferior to that particular chance which you pretend not deny its existence! God is realy and all creation explain the existence of God because all creation is contained in God; if you cant explain the start of the existence then you can never explain the existence of God and if you think the existence is due to chance then call that CHANCE God!

If you choose to call this chance, which I have interchanged with "the symmetry of nature" or "mathematical elegancy" that is fine.

But there are a few things you have to note. This is contrary to a Judeo-Christian (even biblical) worldview which seems to be the worldview of my opponents here.

The "chance"/ ""symmetry of nature"/ "mathematical elegancy" need not be a conscious person/ force. The god imposed on us is a conscious spirit that designs and create out of will.

My point is, existence could very well be a chance happenning, and chance is not god, not by the Judeo-Christian worldview which states that god is a conscious spirit. Numbers are not conscious, the symmetry of nature is not conscious.

So your forced reconciliation falls back on it's face.

Your question about the source of the energy of the sun is rather embarassing and betray your lack of knowledge of the nuclear fusion process in the sun. And the sun will run out of that nuclear fuel just as your car does, so I don't understand what is so fascinating about this question.

 

[Kiranga]

Physics question! You want to prove it scientifically?
It has been tried. In 1907, a Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Mass would put the beds of dying patients on scales, so see if there was any difference in weight at the exact moment of death. There was. The numbers varied somewhat, and the sample size was very small, but the average was something like 3/4 of an ounce (21 grams). Now, even the doctor said more studies would need to be done, and that his sample size, and methods were not great, but it remains the only study like it. However, this was an attempt to see if there were any changes at death from the death itself. Not proof of a soul, but proof that "something" leaves the body at the moment of death. While the experiment is not conclusive, it is interesting.....

Your soul is you. Your physical body is you. Think of it as a literal "first person" environment where you (being a soul) relay messages to yourself (housed in flesh) and are relayed messages (from exterior forces and from your own flesh when it is trying to tell you things like "I am hungry", "I am in danger", "This is not healthy", "I am sick", etc) when you are alive without there being any delay. Your physical body houses your soul until your flesh dies and then you depart from your body no longer as flesh and spirit continue to exist as an intelligence of spirit form alone.

Hogwash, which crackpot journal published that crackpot theory that purpoted to measure the departure of the soul?

 

[Kiranga]

Can you elaborate more?

Kuamini mungu hakufuati kanuni za sayansi, sayansi haiendani na kuamini bali kujua.

Unapofanya coding hamna habari za kuamini, kuna kujua na kutest.

Kama unafuata yote basi huna consistency. Unatumia systems mbili tofauti.

 

[Chamoto]

Kuamini mungu hakufuati kanuni za sayansi, sayansi haiendani na kuamini bali kujua.

Unapofanya coding hamna habari za kuamini, kuna kujua na kutest.

Kama unafuata yote basi huna consistency. Unatumia systems mbili tofauti.

Yaani wewe unataka kuniambia kama unaamini Mungu usitumie kanuni zozote za sayansi, yaani usitumie computer, technologia na wala usifanye research eti kwasababu unamwamini Mungu? Duh kweli hii kali.

 

[Ame]

Kuamini mungu hakufuati kanuni za sayansi, sayansi haiendani na kuamini bali kujua.

Unapofanya coding hamna habari za kuamini, kuna kujua na kutest.

Kama unafuata yote basi huna consistency. Unatumia systems mbili tofauti.

Nandiyo argument yetu kubwa kuwa science ni fact wakati spirituality ni truth. Sasa kama science imeshindwa uelezea mambo yanayoonekana kwa macho tu je itakuwaje superior kwa thinking ambayo inaweza elezea yote invisible na visible? Kama una claim science ni jibu la visible things vipi pale inaposhindwa kwa principal zake uelezea hivyo vitu vyote? So you can see science is just the measure of the stage the human mind has reached in explain things na by iteself is nothing! Ukikubali hapo basi acha hiyo sehemu ilishindwa kuelezewa na science ielezewe na imani maana mpaka sasa reveletion na advancement za kiimani ziko superior kuleta solution to human problem kuliko hiyo science na best scientist wadunia ni wale ambao wanahusika na kuchunguza imani kwahiyo through meditation ambayo ni methodology ya spirituality wameweza kuja na amazing findings.

 

[Ame]

If you choose to call this chance, which I have interchanged with "the symmetry of nature" or "mathematical elegancy" that is fine.

But there are a few things you have to note. This is contrary to a Judeo-Christian (even biblical) worldview which seems to be the worldview of my opponents here.

The "chance"/ ""symmetry of nature"/ "mathematical elegancy" need not be a conscious person/ force. The god imposed on us is a conscious spirit that designs and create out of will.

My point is, existence could very well be a chance happenning, and chance is not god, not by the Judeo-Christian worldview which states that god is a conscious spirit. Numbers are not conscious, the symmetry of nature is not conscious.

So your forced reconciliation falls back on it's face.

Your question about the source of the energy of the sun is rather embarassing and betray your lack of knowledge of the nuclear fusion process in the sun. And the sun will run out of that nuclear fuel just as your car does, so I don't understand what is so fascinating about this question.

I should admit my understanding in nuclear science is very elementary but still I cant bank on your argument maana bado kwenye ecology hiyo bado ni puzzel ndiyo maana dunia inahangaika na mambo ya global worming maana asimilative capacity ya dunia imefikia maximum kiasi kwamba acumulation ya matter ambayo ni store ya energy imekuwa kubwa kuliko recycling capacity ya dunia. Kama huo ndiyo ukweli kwanini ma scientist wa nuclear wameshindwa ku resolve hii problem? Because if at all tuta weza kuweka balancing ya radiated energy ya jua katika form of carbon/stored energy ambayo ni bio physical matter basi hii paradox ya global warming iko solved.

Let me agree it will run out of that energy why is science not able to resolve by re imparting the energy reflected through Albedo to the Sun ili tupunguze hii warming inayosababishwa CFOs gases na ili Sun isi run out of that energy?

 

[Kiranga]

Yaani wewe unataka kuniambia kama unaamini Mungu usitumie kanuni zozote za sayansi, yaani usitumie computer, technologia na wala usifanye research eti kwasababu unamwamini Mungu? Duh kweli hii kali.

Unaweza kutumia, lakini utakuwa inconsistent. Sayansi na imani hazichanganyiki.

 

[Kiranga]

Nandiyo argument yetu kubwa kuwa science ni fact wakati spirituality ni truth. Sasa kama science imeshindwa uelezea mambo yanayoonekana kwa macho tu je itakuwaje superior kwa thinking ambayo inaweza elezea yote invisible na visible? Kama una claim science ni jibu la visible things vipi pale inaposhindwa kwa principal zake uelezea hivyo vitu vyote? So you can see science is just the measure of the stage the human mind has reached in explain things na by iteself is nothing! Ukikubali hapo basi acha hiyo sehemu ilishindwa kuelezewa na science ielezewe na imani maana mpaka sasa reveletion na advancement za kiimani ziko superior kuleta solution to human problem kuliko hiyo science.

Sayansi ni fact na spirituality ni truth, wapi na wapi?

Unaweza ku prove kwamba mungu yupo?

Bora hata hiyo science inayoweza kuelezea mambo yanayoonekana, na wewe unaposema inashindwa kuelezea yasiyoonekana unajuaje kama yapo ili yaelezewe? Unaongelea nini hasa? Maana isije ukaja na mythologies za kutaka sayansi ielezee vitu ambavyo havipo kama soul na mungu, sayansi inakataa kwamba hivi vitu vipo kwa sababu havielezeki kisayansi.

So afadahali sayansi inaweza kuelezea vinavyoonekana, dini haiwezi hata kuelezea vinavyoonekana lakini inataka kujifanya inajua kuelezea visivyoonekana.

 

[Kiranga]

I should admit my understanding in nuclear science is very elementary

Then acha kuongelea vitu usivyojua mwanzo wala mwisho wake, utajiumbua mwenyewe tu. Unachanganya madawa tu bila ku make sense.

 

[mediaman]

Hogwash, which crackpot journal published that crackpot theory that purpoted to measure the departure of the soul?

The New York Times(A journal of Record), 11th March 1907.

 

[Chamoto]

Unaweza kutumia, lakini utakuwa inconsistent. Sayansi na imani hazichanganyiki.

Exactly! You can use science for factual things and God for those things that can't be proven by empirical data. Mimi sioni tatizo katika hilo. Nilikuambia kuwa nakuelewa sana na argument zako ni sahihi kabisa ila nikasema hivyo viwili sivichanganyi. Ila wewe unasema nakuwa inconsistent. Sasa hapo ndipo tunapo tofautiana.

 

[Kiranga]

Exactly! You can use science for factual things and God for those things that can't be proven by empirical data. Mimi sioni tatizo katika hilo. Nilikuambia kuwa nakuelewa sana na argument zako ni sahihi kabisa ila nikasema hivyo viwili sivichanganyi. Ila wewe unasema nakuwa inconsistent. Sasa hapo ndipo tunapo tofautiana.

Wewe una cosmogony na casuistry gani ?

 

[Ame]

Mimi siamini kuwa babu kaoteshwa na Mungu na kabla ya wewe kurudi kutoka kwenye majukumu yako tulilijadili sana hili suala. Naamini sana katika scientific process ya kutafuta ukweli lakini pia namwamini Mungu ila naviweka hivi viwili tofauti. Wakati wa kuabudu nafanya hivyo na wakati wa kutafuta ukweli wa mambo kisayansi natumia kanuni za kisayansi. Yakaisari nampa kaisari na ya Mungu nampa Mungu.


Well, I hope one day you'll change your mind, have a good evening bro,

Usimtenganishe Mungu na science maana Mungu kaumba hiyo science so when you worship basi umtukuze kwakutusaidia kutupa akili ya kufanya science. Ndiyo maana ana itwa almight; omnipresent and omniscience. Kila kiumbe kiko bound kwenye time and memory lakini yeye ni eternity past present and future is open to him inamaana akili zetu zinaweza kuita jana siku baada ya masaa 24 tuliyojiwekea lakini mungu anauwezo wakuifanya akili yako irudi nyuma nahiyo jana ukaiita leo kwasababu hayuko bound na time. Time ni ratiba tulizojiwekea sisi wanadamu is part of identification kwasababu ya brain zetu kutoweza kufunction in all direction past present and future. Basi ku avoid confusion tukajiwekea calender ambayo ni sehemu ya stages za development ya human mind katika ku perceive material things. Wagonjwa wa akili wanatudhihirishia hili. Wapo ambao memory zao zimefutika hawawezi kujua future bali past events tu akianza kukuongelesha anakwambia vitu alivyo vifanya miaka 30 kama vile vimetokea leo masaa kadhaa; I have seen such people. Wapo ambao hawakumbuki kilichotokea sekunde iliyo pita ila vinavyotokea sekunde hiyo tu. Hiyo by itself explain how God can not be bound by time and memory he is part of all these.

So tunapomwabudu tuna mwabudi katika kweli na roho. Yaani the visible and invisible regardless of when and how these would come into contact with us.

 

[Chamoto]

Wewe una cosmogony na casuistry gani ?

You are Good!

 

[Ame]

Then acha kuongelea vitu usivyojua mwanzo wala mwisho wake, utajiumbua mwenyewe tu. Unachanganya madawa tu bila ku make sense.

Unaonaje ukinisaidia mimi kujua ili nisiendelee kuchanganya madawa? Au unaona fahari wewe kujua bila wengine kujua? Okay how is that going to help you is that not selfishness!

 

[Ame]

Huwezi kuamini scientific process inayotaka empirical process kwa kila kitu, halafu hapo hapo ukaamini mungu ambaye hapimiki kwa scientific process.

Utakuwa unatudanganya tu. It is either one or another.

Wewe ndiye unayetaka kutupotosha kwa kuaminisha kuwa shilingi ina upande mmoja tu. Si mambo yote ambayo ukijua side zote mbili ya lead into neutrality sometimes reality can occure in various facets zenye quite different attributes lakini zote kwa pamoja ikitengeneza reality moja.

 

[Chamoto]

Usimtenganishe Mungu na science maana Mungu kaumba hiyo science so when you worship basi umtukuze kwakutusaidia kutupa akili ya kufanya science. Ndiyo maana ana itwa almight; omnipresent and omniscience. Kila kiumbe kiko bound kwenye time and memory lakini yeye ni eternity past present and future is open to him inamaana akili zetu zinaweza kuita jana siku baada ya masaa 24 tuliyojiwekea lakini mungu anauwezo wakuifanya akili yako irudi nyuma nahiyo jana ukaiita leo kwasababu hayuko bound na time. Time ni ratiba tulizojiwekea sisi wanadamu is part of identification kwasababu ya brain zetu kutoweza kufunction in all direction past present and future. Basi ku avoid confusion tukajiwekea calender ambayo ni sehemu ya stages za development ya human mind katika ku perceive material things. Wagonjwa wa akili wanatudhihirishia hili. Wapo ambao memory zao zimefutika hawawezi kujua future bali past events tu akianza kukuongelesha anakwambia vitu alivyo vifanya miaka 30 kama vile vimetokea leo masaa kadhaa; I have seen such people. Wapo ambao hawakumbuki kilichotokea sekunde iliyo pita ila vinavyotokea sekunde hiyo tu. Hiyo by itself explain how God can not be bound by time and memory he is part of all these.

So tunapomwabudu tuna mwabudi katika kweli na roho. Yaani the visible and invisible regardless of when and how these would come into contact with us.

Bro Ame naona hujanielewa vizuri, simaanishi kwamba simshirikishi Mungu katika maisha na shughuli zangu la hasha bali namshirikisha kwamfano kwa kuomba ili anipe busara ya kuweza kamilisha hicho ninachotaka kufanya kwajili ya utukufu wake.

 

[Ame]

Sayansi ni fact na spirituality ni truth, wapi na wapi?

Unaweza ku prove kwamba mungu yupo?

Bora hata hiyo science inayoweza kuelezea mambo yanayoonekana, na wewe unaposema inashindwa kuelezea yasiyoonekana unajuaje kama yapo ili yaelezewe? Unaongelea nini hasa? Maana isije ukaja na mythologies za kutaka sayansi ielezee vitu ambavyo havipo kama soul na mungu, sayansi inakataa kwamba hivi vitu vipo kwa sababu havielezeki kisayansi.

So afadahali sayansi inaweza kuelezea vinavyoonekana, dini haiwezi hata kuelezea vinavyoonekana lakini inataka kujifanya inajua kuelezea visivyoonekana.

Nisome vizuri sijasema hayo unayosema. Nimesema science inadai inaweza kuelezea mambo yanayoonekana lakini mbona hata hayo inauwezo wa kuelezea machache na siyo yote? Hata uwepo wa kiasi gani cha reserve ya oil ambayo ni kitu halisia in terms of volume imeshindwa ku predict kila mara inaendelea kusema tuna reserve kiasi fulani lakini technology inapo advance miaka inaendelea kuongezeka. My dear science is only the measure of development of human mind. Kama hiyo mind tu yenyewe science imeshindwa kuielezea comprehensively seuze Mungu aliyo iumba hiyo mind. Human being is controled by time and mind basi na hivi ndivyo tunajidai eti ni science.

 

[mediaman]

Hogwash, the whole religiosity drama and it's rituals are nothing but a silly attempt of man to adopt a grandiose psychology towards life, and avoid the fact that we are a chance happenning in an unimportant corner of a vast godless universe.

There is nothing supernatural, and even that which appears so, appears so due to the poverty of our minds.

That is the pride of life. Kiburi cha uzima!
Collins was like you but he eventually believed in God.
“I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.