Is God fair ?

[Ishmael]

Kumjibu mleta posti ni kwamba inawezekana wanyama wana akili zaidi yake, kwani pale anazaliwa akifika umri wa kuweka/kubeba mimba hufanya hivyo. Kwa kuwa umepotea na kuzidiwa akili na mnyama kwa kuamini kuwa mungu atachukia ukifanya hilia au lile kuhusiana na ngono ndio maana umeangukia kubaya. Ukifika umri wa jambo fulani lihusulo mwili wako wapaswa kulifanya kulingana na haja zako. Lakini sio kusubiri eti kuna kitu kinaitwa mungu kitachukia. Kama huyo mungu hakutaka ufanye hivyo kwa nini aweke umri wa maturity kuwa miaka 18 au less? Mfano kama kuzaa kwa uchungu ni adhabu kwa wanadamu iweje kwa wanyama pia?

I guess you believe in government, that's where the liberals took us. I suppose your one of the brainiacs that believe aliens are going to destroy the human race next year because we didn't go green fast enough, no joke, that came from a liberal that worked for NASA

Now, you offer meaningless pictures to obfuscate your defeat on the intellectual merits.

I understand. Non theism is indefensible in reason.

 

[Ishmael]

Ni vigumu kupata majibu kama utalazimisha uwepo wa mungu.

Ukiweka uwezekano wa mungu kutokuwepo, kwamba ni story tu katungwa na wanadamu, everything makes sense.

Ushenzi unaoendelea duniani all of a sudden hauwi mgumu kuuelezea, hakuna mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote wa kuuzuia.

Lakini ukisema kuna mungu, mwenye upendo wote na uwezo wote, huwezi kuelezea kwa nini kaumba dunia ambayo mabaya yanawezekanika wakati alikuwa na uwezo wa kuumba dunia ambayo mabaya hayawezekaniki.

Hata binadamu tu mwenye roho nzuri akiwa na uwezo wa kuwapa wanawe good time anawapa.

Inakuwaje mungu mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote awe na uwezo wa kutupa good time halafu atubanie?

"You still haven't given us a logical argument to back up your ridiculous faith-inspired statement. "

Ridiculous liar. Again, here is my evidence for God.
Where is your evidence to justify your belief in NO God?

Contingency – Why does something exist rather than nothing? Something cannot come from nothing, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is necessary. Universe began. Universe is not self-existent. Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it's existence. God does not – no beginning.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning requires a cause. Cause of Physical Universe cannot be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: specified complexity, specifically integrated interdependencies for third purposes, irreducible complexity. No plausible Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations actually exist.

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.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God's attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, 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 (Atheism) – 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, intentionality, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

 

[Wickama]

Maisha yake yame-jiadapti vizuri kwenye environment.

Waliokuwa tofauti hawakuwa favored and the environment, wame die out! But this process is still continuing...

PlanckScale, kwa kauli hizi are you still an atheist. Ability ya Kuji-adapt inatoka wapi HUKU UNASEMA ALL LIFE HAS NO CREATOR? Na UKISEMA waliokuwa tofauti HAWAKUWA FAVOURED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, WHY SHOULD THE ENVIRONMENT NOT-FAVOUR ANYBODY? WHY IS THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ADAPTING SO AS TO ACCOMODATE WENYE MATUMBO MIGUUNI? INSTEAD YOU NEED THESE FOLKS TO ADAPT

I WISH YOU LUCK IN ANSWERING

cc Eiyer,

 

[Eiyer]

PlanckScale, kwa kauli hizi are you still an atheist. Ability ya Kuji-adapt inatoka wapi HUKU UNASEMA ALL LIFE HAS NO CREATOR? Na UKISEMA waliokuwa tofauti HAWAKUWA FAVOURED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, WHY SHOULD THE ENVIRONMENT NOT-FAVOUR ANYBODY? WHY IS THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ADAPTING SO AS TO ACCOMODATE WENYE MATUMBO MIGUUNI? INSTEAD YOU NEED THESE FOLKS TO ADAPT

I WISH YOU LUCK IN ANSWERING

cc Eiyer,

Mkuu siwaoni tena hawa jamaa sijui wamekimbilia wapi!

 

[PlanckScale]

PlanckScale, kwa kauli hizi are you still an atheist. Ability ya Kuji-adapt inatoka wapi HUKU UNASEMA ALL LIFE HAS NO CREATOR? Na UKISEMA waliokuwa tofauti HAWAKUWA FAVOURED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, WHY SHOULD THE ENVIRONMENT NOT-FAVOUR ANYBODY? WHY IS THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ADAPTING SO AS TO ACCOMODATE WENYE MATUMBO MIGUUNI? INSTEAD YOU NEED THESE FOLKS TO ADAPT

I WISH YOU LUCK IN ANSWERING

cc Eiyer,

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Let me try to to explain and please understand that my explanation does not require any divine intervention. It is basically a very simple explanation, yet powerful. Also, do not get caught up with my use of some words like "Kuji-adapt" and "THE ENVIRONMENT favoring something". I have tried to use quotations so that you do not take it literary as that what the environment is thinking and deciding what to do, for example.

Here we go:

Ability ya Kuji-adapt - simply means mwenye tumbo lililo kaa vizuri kwa juu (in this case Kiranga) halikupata mateso ya kugongwa gongwa na mawe. Kwahiyo basi, kizazi chake kilistawi vizuri.

Wenye tumbo lililo kaa vibaya (Planckscale) walizaa vizazi hafifu, karne hadi karne, mpaka wakatoweka. Therefore, after a long time, mbegu za Kiranga zikawa dominant na watu wakawa na umbile la Kiranga.

Niliposema "The ENVIRONMENT FAVORED" Kiranga, it simply means that ile sehemu tuliokua tunaishi (kwa mfano sehemu ya mawe mawe makali), umbile la Kiranga lime umudu mazingira hayo, wakati mimi na kizazi changu kimeshindwa. Therefore, "environment" imempendelea Kiranga. Hii haimaanishi kwamba environment ili cheki situation kisha ikasema; "aisee, ngoja nimpendelee Kiranga". Hapana ndugu yangu. Ni jinsi gani maumbile, utafutaji chakula, lishe, uzalishaji (ngono), heredity, na mazingira tunayo ishi yanavyo inter-play.

Pengine aina ya mwili wangu (Planckscale) ungekuwa dominant kama "the environment" ingekuwa majini, for example. Labda kwenye maji position ya tumbo langu lingenisaidia ku dive chini na kupata chakula majini kirahisi kwa kutumia less energy kupita Kiranga ambaye position ya tumbo lake linafanya atumie energy nyingi kila akitaka kuzamia samaki. Matokeo yake environment "ingenipendelea" mimi Planckscale. In this case, "the environment" is mazingira ya kuishi majini.

Naomba usome tena nilicho andika. Alafu kumbuka hizo changes zina tokea baada ya muda mrefu, over 100,000 of years. There are evidence of this process from genetic studies, embryology, and anatomical studies of different spices.

My son, who at the time was 6.5 years old, was able to explain why the polar bear has white fur and not black fur. He did so with just few ques like the color of snow and how carnivals hunt to feed! His mind is free to think without preconceive notions about things.

 

[PlanckScale]

…

Contingency – Why does something exist rather than nothing? Something cannot come from nothing, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is necessary. Universe began.
You are making assumption that something cannot come from nothing. Of cause you are trying to understand the world by using your commonsense. Fair enough. However, that is a statement that can be forgiven becomes you may have not studied or read a little on quantum mechanics. I suggest you look into the modern understanding about "nothingness" or vacuum. There are scientific evidence of "things" coming out of nothingness. A good start would be to read about the "Casimir effect" and "quantum vacuum zero-point energy".

When you say "the Universe is not self-existent", how do you know this for sure? It sounds more like you are saying; "the universe must be created". Better to have an open mind about physical reality and try to investigate and prove what it is or not. Our expanding knowledge has constantly change our notion of reality, so don't close your mind. People don't believe the earth was flat anymore or pale surrender bridge kuna chunisi!

The deeper we understand the microscopic world, the difficult it becomes to use basic notions of empties, causality (time relationships of cause and effects) and so forth. scientific approach is the only tool that can enable to understand such realities.


Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it's existence. God does not – no beginning.
What is the basis of this claim? Why if god exist it does not need a creator?
While the bigbang theory has many supporting evidence, it is however, still a theory. It is therefore, very dangerous for religious people to start using this unfinished scientific investigation to support the existence of god.


Cause of Physical Universe cannot be Physical.
Why?
What is it that you call non-physical? Have you seen it?
How do you know for sure that there are non-physical things?


Design: specified complexity, specifically integrated interdependencies for third purposes, irreducible complexity. No plausible Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations actually exist.
You have lost me here. Could you rephrase and make it simple for our minds, please.


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.
Be careful here with kukumbatia some scientific facts!
Many religious people now say the bigbang shows the universe had a beginning; the fine tuned constants of nature means the universe was designed. Let me cautioned you, the investigation is still on going. Back then, Einstein thought the universe was static (non-expanding). In fact, his calculations on general relativity did show that the universe was expanding, but he purposely introduced a constant, the "cosmological constant", in order to counter this expansion on his theory so that the universe can remain static as it was thought at the time. So don't start making claims about unfinished investigation work...


Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being.
Now let us say that god existed and that he/she is indeed metaphysical? One can still infer this god by its interaction with the world. And therefore, we should be able to detect god indirectly (I am not talking about dreaming of god or talking to the angels here). Religion is constantly trying to hide god from investigation by claiming he/she is outside the universe and non-physical.


Since God's attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, God must be actual.
This is like saying "since musicians in the band play in harmony, then all bands in the world play in harmony with every other band"


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Please rephrase...


Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE's, supernatural phenomena
Christ's resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Each gospel has its own account on the resurrection. The list of women who saw him first differ from gospel to gospel. go check...

When Jesus supposedly appeared after his death, many did not recognize him, which I find it strange. I mean what is the point of going into the trouble of allowing yourself to be killed then when you raise from the dead you are unrecognized until you prove yourself who you were?

Also, Jesus' virgin birth was never mentioned by apostle Paul. Please read carefully about Paul in the bible

 

[Ishmael]

Contingency – Why does something exist rather than nothing? Something cannot come from nothing, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is necessary. Universe began.
You are making assumption that something cannot come from nothing. Of cause you are trying to understand the world by using your commonsense. Fair enough. However, that is a statement that can be forgiven becomes you may have not studied or read a little on quantum mechanics. I suggest you look into the modern understanding about "nothingness" or vacuum. There are scientific evidence of "things" coming out of nothingness. A good start would be to read about the "Casimir effect" and "quantum vacuum zero-point energy".

When you say "the Universe is not self-existent", how do you know this for sure? It sounds more like you are saying; "the universe must be created". Better to have an open mind about physical reality and try to investigate and prove what it is or not. Our expanding knowledge has constantly change our notion of reality, so don't close your mind. People don't believe the earth was flat anymore or pale surrender bridge kuna chunisi!

The deeper we understand the microscopic world, the difficult it becomes to use basic notions of empties, causality (time relationships of cause and effects) and so forth. scientific approach is the only tool that can enable to understand such realities.

How assumption is existing of something rather than nothing?

Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it's existence. God does not – no beginning.
What is the basis of this claim? Why if god exist it does not need a creator?
While the bigbang theory has many supporting evidence, it is however, still a theory. It is therefore, very dangerous for religious people to start using this unfinished scientific investigation to support the existence of god.

Fine Tuning is fully verified
Big Bang is fully verified
Free-will is verifiable
Contingency is logically verifiable
....\
You cannot refute a single one!

You are too lazy and dishonest to engage and think.

Cause of Physical Universe cannot be Physical.
Why?
What is it that you call non-physical? Have you seen it?
How do you know for sure that there are non-physical things?

You have no refutations.

You have no evidence or arguments.

Design: specified complexity, specifically integrated interdependencies for third purposes, irreducible complexity. No plausible Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations actually exist.
You have lost me here. Could you rephrase and make it simple for our minds, please.

What is this you don't understand stand, so I can rephrase it?

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.
Be careful here with kukumbatia some scientific facts!
Many religious people now say the bigbang shows the universe had a beginning; the fine tuned constants of nature means the universe was designed. Let me cautioned you, the investigation is still on going. Back then, Einstein thought the universe was static (non-expanding). In fact, his calculations on general relativity did show that the universe was expanding, but he purposely introduced a constant, the "cosmological constant", in order to counter this expansion on his theory so that the universe can remain static as it was thought at the time. So don't start making claims about unfinished investigation work...

Where is your sufficient cause of a Universe which began to exist from physical nothing (per Big Bang, BGV theorem)?

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being.
Now let us say that god existed and that he/she is indeed metaphysical? One can still infer this god by its interaction with the world. And therefore, we should be able to detect god indirectly (I am not talking about dreaming of god or talking to the angels here). Religion is constantly trying to hide god from investigation by claiming he/she is outside the universe and non-physical.

God is not a thing to be detected. Then provide the evidences of NO GOD and arguments for non theism you have consistently dodged,?

Since God's attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, God must be actual.
This is like saying "since musicians in the band play in harmony, then all bands in the world play in harmony with every other band"

Not is not. You can't compare Oranges with Mangoes just because both are fruits.

Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Please rephrase...

What is this you don't understand?

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE's, supernatural phenomena
Christ's resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Each gospel has its own account on the resurrection. The list of women who saw him first differ from gospel to gospel. go check...

You missed it, each gospel is addressing different audience.

When Jesus supposedly appeared after his death, many did not recognize him, which I find it strange. I mean what is the point of going into the trouble of allowing yourself to be killed then when you raise from the dead you are unrecognized until you prove yourself who you were?

500 people did.

Also, Jesus' virgin birth was never mentioned by apostle Paul. Please read carefully about Paul in the bible

The same Paul said Jesus is God. Do you believe him?

 

[PlanckScale]

How assumption is existing of something rather than nothing?

Fine Tuning is fully verified
Big Bang is fully verified
Free-will is verifiable

With the above comments, I think we are in a different league when it comes to understand physical reality.
Don't get me wrong, I thing the big bang theory is the best theory so far for explaining the beginning of our universe and its structures. However, it is scientifically wrong to claim that the theory is "fully verified".

The big-bang theory has accumulated some strong evidences, such as the abundance of helium and Oxygen and the ration between these two gases, the Cosmic background radiation, etc. But it is still a theory, and with some major problems, such as the following:

I suggest you read a little bit on the following problems with regards to the big-bang theory:

1) the horizon problem
2) the magnetic monopole problem
3) the flatness problem

Also, the theory makes two big assumptions:
1) that physical laws are universal; 2) and the cosmological principle.


It would really be worthless to discuss with you scientific matters when you don't even understand what a scientific theory is. So please try to understand the above issues and learn a little more about the big bang theory, before we continues with other issues, constructively...

 

[PlanckScale]

By the way, probing the big bang itself is another problem. This is due to the fact that there is still no conclusive theory for explaining the physical structure below the Planck time, which is = 10[SUP]−43[/SUP] seconds after the big bang (The smallest time possible). There is no good theory that unifies the gravitational force and the electro-weak force (which is a combination of the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force) at the Planck era. This problem is complicated further because at the Planck era, these forces are required to operate at a background-less (or independent of any background).

The need for background independence is because, at the Planck era, space had the smallest discrete size, similar to the quantized electromagnetic wave - the photon. This also means it is the smallest distance one can travel (if possible). So the physical theory at times less than Planck time requires to have equations that do not dependent on space and time. Instead, they are expected to produce them (space and time) at distances longer than the Planck length, where space and time started to take their current dimensions as observed today. Such is the complication of explaining how the big bang came about.

The notion of background independence is at the cutting edge of physics. So far the best theory for describe the big bang at the beginning (quantum gravity) is loop quantum gravity, which to some extend is background independent.

 

[Pritty wa joseph]

soma hapa

 

[Ishmael]

With the above comments, I think we are in a different league when it comes to understand physical reality.
Don't get me wrong, I thing the big bang theory is the best theory so far for explaining the beginning of our universe and its structures. However, it is scientifically wrong to claim that the theory is "fully verified".

The big-bang theory has accumulated some strong evidences, such as the abundance of helium and Oxygen and the ration between these two gases, the Cosmic background radiation, etc. But it is still a theory, and with some major problems, such as the following:

I suggest you read a little bit on the following problems with regards to the big-bang theory:

1) the horizon problem
2) the magnetic monopole problem
3) the flatness problem

Also, the theory makes two big assumptions:
1) that physical laws are universal; 2) and the cosmological principle.


It would really be worthless to discuss with you scientific matters when you don't even understand what a scientific theory is. So please try to understand the above issues and learn a little more about the big bang theory, before we continues with other issues, constructively...

Are you serious about your comment and links annexed to it? What one of the article you annexed says is that the universe is eternal it had no end nor does it have a beginning. Therefore making it clearly that it didn't get started buy a celestial being like God. Obviously the Big Bang makes no sense nor has it ever made sense. After all it's only a theory and not a fact. We don't call it the Big Bang fact.

Well science cant prove how life came into existence. Einstein said: "there is no case called: ‘science versus religion'. They compliment each other"!! Religion is based on the study of God's word… Science is based on the study of God's world, that was made by God's word: uni-verse… The chance of ALL LIFE coming from a single celled protozoa, that happened to be floating around in space after the ‘big bang', is more unbelievable, than the theory of ‘the God creator'!!

 

[PlanckScale]

....The chance of ALL LIFE coming from a single celled protozoa, that happened to be floating around in space after the ‘big bang', is more unbelievable, than the theory of ‘the God creator'!!

Only evidence can tell us how life came about.
Any theory to be credible must be testable and produce evidences that matches what the theory had predicted.
So it really doesn't matter which answer feels better to you (or me). Evidence is what counts.

As Kiranga explained to you, invoking god as a creator of the universe creates another problem of who created god. Both the universe and god are complex entities. If you say that god was always there and god was never created then it is the same thing as saying that the universe has always been here and was never created.

So sisi tusio amini mysticism (miungu, mizimu, mashetani, wachawi, malaika, na father Christmas) tunasema hivi; achaneni na imani hizo ambazo zinaipotosha dunia. Tumia akili na kama jibu halipatikani leo, basi vizazi vijavyo vita enedelea na uchambuzi.

 

[Kiranga]

Only evidence can tell us how life came about.
Any theory to be credible must be testable and produce evidences that matches what the theory had predicted.
So it really doesn't matter which answer feels better to you (or me). Evidence is what counts.

As Kiranga explained to you, invoking god as a creator of the universe creates another problem of who created god. Both the universe and god are complex entities. If you say that god was always there and god was never created then it is the same thing as saying that the universe has always been here and was never created.

So sisi tusio amini mysticism (miungu, mizimu, mashetani, wachawi, malaika, na father Christmas) tunasema hivi; achaneni na imani hizo ambazo zinaipotosha dunia. Tumia akili na kama jibu halipatikani leo, basi vizazi vijavyo vita enedelea na uchambuzi.

Hawa watu wanasumbuliwa na inconsistent thinking and lack of deep analysis.

Kama complexity ni lazima iumbwe, then mungu naye lazima kaumbwa, na aliyemuumba kaumbwa, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

Mungu anakuwa hadithi tu.

Kama complexity si lazima iumbwe, then hatuhitaji mungu awepo ili kuuelezea ulimwengu.

Mungu anakuwa hadithi tu.

Either way you cut it, mungu hadithi tu.

Ila kuna watu wana cognitive dissonance hili hawataki kuliona.

 

[PlanckScale]

...

Either way you cut it, mungu hadithi tu.

Ila kuna watu wana cognitive dissonance hili hawataki kuliona.

… And they looked into the sky and saw it was immerse and complex. They were overwhelmed. Then, they bowed to their knees and proclaimed; "let there be a God who created the heavens and earth". And thereafter, God became, and the world made sense again.

 

[Ishmael]

Only evidence can tell us how life came about.

Where is your evidence?
Support your words with verifiable evidence and not just dismissals. Refute my words if you can.

Any theory to be credible must be testable and produce evidences that matches what the theory had predicted.
So it really doesn't matter which answer feels better to you (or me). Evidence is what counts.

and who tested Evolution which took billion of years per your claim? Who was there for billion of years evaluating evolution?

As Kiranga explained to you, invoking god as a creator of the universe creates another problem of who created god. Both the universe and god are complex entities. If you say that god was always there and god was never created then it is the same thing as saying that the universe has always been here and was never created.

You hit the wall, were exposed and refuted.
Now, you offer meaningless pictures to obfuscate your defeat on the intellectual merits.

I understand, non theism is indefensible in reason.

So sisi tusio amini mysticism (miungu, mizimu, mashetani, wachawi, malaika, na father Christmas) tunasema hivi; achaneni na imani hizo ambazo zinaipotosha dunia. Tumia akili na kama jibu halipatikani leo, basi vizazi vijavyo vita enedelea na uchambuzi.

You have no refutations.

You have no evidence or arguments.

You were refuted on your protests. All of my arguments are for God's existence. You have no answers, just empty dismissals.

God self-exists. Self existence is rationally NECESSARY because of ex nihilo nihilo fit. The Universe BEGAN to exist. YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO THIS PERFECTLY LOGICAL PROPOSITION.
Where is your refutation of the many evidence I provided?
You dodged them!

Explain how chemical causation is free-will?

Where is your sufficient cause of a Universe which began to exist from physical nothing (per Big Bang, BGV theorem)?

Where is your objective basis for moral truth and duties?

You have failed to answer anything non theist, while I refuted everything you threw at me!

 

[Ishmael]

Hawa watu wanasumbuliwa na inconsistent thinking and lack of deep analysis.

You still hide from all of my questions.

Kama complexity ni lazima iumbwe, then mungu naye lazima kaumbwa, na aliyemuumba kaumbwa, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

Fact: I have answered you
Fact: You have utterly failed to answer any of my questions or refute my arguments.

Mungu anakuwa hadithi tu.

Kama complexity si lazima iumbwe, then hatuhitaji mungu awepo ili kuuelezea ulimwengu.

Mungu anakuwa hadithi tu.

1) Rational Necessity Ex Nihilo Nihilo Fit is NOT special pleading. SOMETHING SELF-EXISTS BY RATIONAL NECESSITY.
2) The UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST. All things that BEGIN TO EXIST REQUIRE A CAUSE.
3) I don't need to prove God self-exists. THIS ARGUMENT IS ONE OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL proofs for the likelihood of God's necessity as the self-existent causal agency behind a finite contingent Universe. Your demand that I 'prove the proof' leads to infinite regress. Prove the proof of the proof of the proof.....

Either way you cut it, mungu hadithi tu.

Ila kuna watu wana cognitive dissonance hili hawataki kuliona.

1) 'Proof of God' has never been relevant nor necessary for the arguments I offered to be valid. The arguments are evidences for God.

2) I regularly offer massive evidence to justify Theistic belief (see below). You cannot refute my evidence nor can you offer any justification for your non theistic belief.

Here is my evidence for God's likely existence.
Where is your evidence God does not exist?

Contingency – Why does something exist rather than nothing? Something cannot come from nothing, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is necessary. Universe began. Universe is not self-existent. Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it's existence. God does not – no beginning.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning requires a cause. Cause of Physical Universe cannot be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: specified complexity, specifically integrated interdependencies for third purposes, irreducible complexity. No plausible Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations actually exist.

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.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God's attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities are also actual, 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, intentionality, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

 

[Ishmael]

… And they looked into the sky and saw it was immerse and complex. They were overwhelmed. Then, they bowed to their knees and proclaimed; "let there be a God who created the heavens and earth". And thereafter, God became, and the world made sense again.

Then what were you trying so desperately to refute?

Beat it.

No contradictions. You have demonstrated no such thing.

You have demonstrated obtuseness and willingness to brazenly lie for appearances..

 

[Mbuty]

I am in a deep thoughts,Is God really fair?

For instance...how come mtu unajitunza for so long timeas as a woman or a man)then it reaches a point unadecide kuwa na maisha...you open up your heart to sb...you give him/her everything full committed then what you get in return ni maumivu yasiyoeleweka na HIV juu

Kinachosikitisha ni kuwa....wale ambao ni waru waru,are enjoying life to the fullest...IS GOD REALLY FAIR?

NISAIDIENI cause spmetimes i do fail to explain

Umeuliza swali zuri,ngoja nijaribu kuonesha U FAIR wa Mungu japo kidogo, anapokea maombi ya kila mtu,anatunyeshea mvua wote wema na wabaya,anatupa pumzi wote sawa,wote ametupa masaa 24 katika siku and more u can think off. Ni hivi Mungu amempa binadamu akili ya kutambua mema na mabaya,amempa maamuzi ili unapohukumiwa inakuwa ni haki maana based on ur decisions, Mungu huwa haingilii maamuzi yako ingawa kuna sehemu chache sana tumeona Mungu akiingilia kati mf Sauli alipokua anaenda Damascus(dameshki) kama sijakosea kutesa watu wa Mungu.
Kuna muhubiri 1 aliwahi kusema shetani anaangaika na wale ambao sio wake,yaani wale ambao wanasimama katika kusudi la Mungu ndio anahangaika nao na ndio maana unaona changamoto zinakuwa nyingi sana pale unapojitunza au unapokua umesimama na Mungu,hawa sio wake anahangaika nao lakini wale walio wake haangaiki kwakuwa amekwisha kuwapata! Wanasema kuku wako manati ya nini! Biblia inasema mateso ya mwenye haki ni mengi,lakini BWANA hunponya nayo yote-Zaburi 34:19. Hii inaonesha mwenye haki anachangamoto nyingi sana ila inatakiwa usitoe nafasi kwa muovu maana wewe ni " target " hivyo akipata nafasi tu unaangamia. Biblia hii inasema BWANA atafanya mlango wa kutokea pale jaribu linapokua kubwa! Mara nyingi tunaanguka dhambini kwa tamaa zetu wenyewe na sio Mungu. Ila kama ungemshirikisha Mungu katika mambo yako atakushindia na kukupa nguvu ya kuushinda ulimwengu. 1 Yohana 5:4. God is more than fair na ndio maana hata kama unajiona unanuka dhambi au mchafu kiasi gani anakupokea,hata kama umekosa mara ngapi anakusamehe,ni aina gani ya Mungu tulie naye. Hebu tuangalie mazuri ambayo Mungu anafanya kwetu. GOD IS FAIR and the decision is in you.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using JamiiForums

 

[La Princesa]

Umeuliza swali zuri,ngoja nijaribu kuonesha U FAIR wa Mungu japo kidogo, anapokea maombi ya kila mtu,anatunyeshea mvua wote wema na wabaya,anatupa pumzi wote sawa,wote ametupa masaa 24 katika siku and more u can think off. Ni hivi Mungu amempa binadamu akili ya kutambua mema na mabaya,amempa miiaamuzi ili unapohukumiwa inakuwa ni haki maana based on ur decisions, Mungu huwa haingilii maamuzi yako ingawa kuna sehemu chache sana tumeona Mungu akiingilia kati mf Sauli alipokua anaenda Damascus(dameshki) kama sijakosea kutesa watu wa Mungu.
Kuna muhubiri 1 aliwahi kusema shetani anaangaika na wale ambao sio wake,yaani wale ambao wanasimama katika kusudi la Mungu ndio anahangaika nao na ndio maana unaona changamoto zinakuwa nyingi sana pale unapojitunza au unapokua umesimama na Mungu,hawa sio wake anahangaika nao lakini wale walio wake haangaiki kwakuwa amekwisha kuwapata! Wanasema kuku wako manati ya nini! Biblia inasema mateso ya mwenye haki ni mengi,lakini BWANA hunponya nayo yote-Zaburi 34:19. Hii inaonesha mwenye haki anachangamoto nyingi sana ila inatakiwa usitoe nafasi kwa muovu maana wewe ni " target " hivyo akipata nafasi tu unaangamia. Biblia hii inasema BWANA atafanya mlango wa kutokea pale jaribu linapokua kubwa! Mara nyingi tunaanguka dhambini kwa tamaa zetu wenyewe na sio Mungu. Ila kama ungemshirikisha Mungu katika mambo yako atakushindia na kukupa nguvu ya kuushinda ulimwengu. 1 Yohana 5:4. God is more than fair na ndio maana hata kama unajiona unanuka dhambi au mchafu kiasi gani anakupokea,hata kama umekosa mara ngapi anakusamehe,ni aina gani ya Mungu tulie naye. Hebu tuangalie mazuri ambayo Mungu anafanya kwetu. GOD IS FAIR and the decision is in you.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using JamiiForums

Amen amen amen,i now understand well that God os very good and very fair...i adore him....Thanks once again and bless you

 

[PlanckScale]

Amen amen amen,i now understand well that God is very good and very fair...i adore him....Thanks once again and bless you

This should end here.
Please give respect to mwenye hoja ambae kwasasa ameridhishwa na jibu la hapo juuna.

"Let there be a God who created the heavens and earth so the world can make sense again"