Is God fair ?

[Kiranga]

We are talking about how the height of perfection can eliminate everything including God. Dot dodge the argument. Do you know the definition of "nothingness" which Cole is linking to perfect asymmetry? Is it by anyway telling you it is elimination or lead to "non-existing" of anything? Najua hujui, nataka nikueleweshe jinsi ulivyokosea kwa premise hii below:

"So if god is the height of perfection, there would be nothing existing, not even god."

Usikimbie tulia ujifunze.

The perfect perfect symmetry is nothingness, for there would be nothing to compare with in nothingness.

And nothingness does not include god, because, it is after all, nothingness.

A god head cannot be perfection, because he is not nothingness.

The question here is, do you dispute that nothingness is the height of perfection?

If so, based on what?

 

[a4afrika]

So god is not benevolent?

Kama asingekuwa benevolent basi asingeweka sheria ambazo zisipokiukwa zinazaa Benevolence!
Sema shaka yako nyingine Mkuu!
Anaita sasa!

 

[mwandiga]

Pole sana, nimejiweka kwenye nafasi yako na i know what u mean. Naomba usome DEISM. Nenda google kisha fungua hilo neno. Utapata jibu Mungu yupo au Mungu baada ya kuumba ulimwengu aliuacha tu ukae watu wafanye wanayotaka. Pole once again. But God anajua anachofanya hata kama ni malipizi ya wafanya mabaya unaweza yabeba wewe. Soma then tujadiliane

 

[Lisa Valentine]

The perfect perfect symmetry is nothingness, for there would be nothing to compare with in nothingness.

And nothingness does not include god, because, it is after all, nothingness.

A god head cannot be perfection, because he is not nothingness.

The question here is, do you dispute that nothingness is the height of perfection?

If so, based on what?

I do not dispute anything and its not my intention at all. I am aiming at showing you that the constructs that you are picking, you do not understand them thoroughly. Hence the wrong argument from your posts. Nothingness that you took from K.C Cole to justify the conclusion that there will be nothing existing is not the one you needed to fit on there therefore the premise is facing problems.

You should admit that because for perfect symmetry nothingness do not means nothing but "that which doesn't make difference". The universe could have been full of things but they are in perfect symmetry therefore whatever done nothing changes. You really wanted it to line up with vacuum matrix or even further but this line of thinking is suggesting the universe from broken symmetry.

 

[Kiranga]

I do not dispute anything and its not my intention at all. I am aiming at showing you that the constructs that you are picking, you do not understand them thoroughly. Hence the wrong argument from your posts. Nothingness that you took from K.C Cole to justify the conclusion that there will be nothing existing is not the one you needed to fit on there therefore the premise is facing problems.

You should admit that because for perfect symmetry nothingness do not means nothing but "that which doesn't make difference". The universe could have been full of things but they are in perfect symmetry therefore whatever done nothing changes. You really wanted it to line up with vacuum matrix or even further but this line of thinking is suggesting the universe from broken symmetry.

First thing first.

If you aim at showing my wrong understanding, you are disputing that my understanding is right.

So you can't say that you are not disputing anything.

Who has the right understanding now?

 

[Mashaxizo]

Loh!! Siamini hapa kama ni wewe umetoa bonge la ushauri kama Pastor, mbona sasa unawapiga vita walokole kwenye mada zako wasisogelee?

Kwa kweli kuna mambo huwa tunamsingizia Mungu kumbe ni utashi wetu tu,Mungu anaongea na akili zetu zatupasa tuzitumie vyema,kuna mambo tuyapatayo sababu tu hatujashirikisha vizuri akili zetu,ndo maana hata Biblia yasema kila mtu hujaribiwa na tamaa zake mwenyewe na wala usiseme Mungu anamjaribu mtu maana Mungu hajaribiwi na kila mtu atavuna alichopanda.

Hahahahaaaaa. paragraph ya kwanza imenichekesha sana!

Mlokole hapendagi jukwaa lile! kule kuna actors wengi sana wanaojitia ulokole kama strategic ya kutafuta wapenzi and/or kuzoa sifa. nimeshatambua hilo kitambo sana! thus why kule najifyetuaga sana!

but ukija kwa jukwaa hili ni kutumia tu uwezo wa kufikiri kama Mungu alivyotuzawadia!

:focus:
Nimegundua watu wengi hawatambui uwezo na mipango ya Mungu ingawa wanahudhuria makanisani na misikitini kila leo.

Wengi wanaamini lolote wafanyalo wamepangiwa na Mungu kitu ambacho sio kweli. Mungu hawezi kumpangia mja wake mabaya. ukijiona tu umedondokea pua jua umeshafeli kamtihani na hapo ulipodondokea ndio malipo ya mtihani wako. Mungu hapigagi sup!

Mdau (mleta uzi) anaonekana hana elimu ya ukimwi.

 

[everlenk]

Hahahahaaaaa. paragraph ya kwanza imenichekesha sana!

Mlokole hapendagi jukwaa lile! kule kuna actors wengi sana wanaojitia ulokole kama strategic ya kutafuta wapenzi and/or kuzoa sifa. nimeshatambua hilo kitambo sana! thus why kule najifyetuaga sana!

but ukija kwa jukwaa hili ni kutumia tu uwezo wa kufikiri kama Mungu alivyotuzawadia!

:focus:
Nimegundua watu wengi hawatambui uwezo na mipango ya Mungu ingawa wanahudhuria makanisani na misikitini kila leo.

Wengi wanaamini lolote wafanyalo wamepangiwa na Mungu kitu ambacho sio kweli. Mungu hawezi kumpangia mja wake mabaya. ukijiona tu umedondokea pua jua umeshafeli kamtihani na hapo ulipodondokea ndio malipo ya mtihani wako. Mungu hapigagi sup!

Mdau (mleta uzi) anaonekana hana elimu ya ukimwi.

Hahahaha!! Umeniacha hoi eti Mungu hapigagi sup!!! Umeifanya siku yangu kuwa murua

 

[Mashaxizo]

Hahahaha!! Umeniacha hoi eti Mungu hapigagi sup!!! Umeifanya siku yangu kuwa murua

Hahahahaaaa! hata wewe umefanya siku yangu ya leo kuwa murua sana.

Ok. enjoy your day.

 

[Lisa Valentine]

First thing first.

If you aim at showing my wrong understanding, you are disputing that my understanding is right.

So you can't say that you are not disputing anything.

Who has the right understanding now?

There is article, and there is your argument. I was wasn't referencing the latter (on the dispute). Stick to the argument, spin off wont ad much to this.

 

[Kiranga]

Kama asingekuwa benevolent basi asingeweka sheria ambazo zisipokiukwa zinazaa Benevolence!
Sema shaka yako nyingine Mkuu!
Anaita sasa!

Umeandika

Benevolence and Love ni matokeo ya kutii sheria, not otherwise!

Kwanini uzeeke? Why falling? Je, unajua uzee kama ilivyo kwa kifo ni matokeo ya ukiukwaji wa sheria/nature/Mungu?

Hizo sheria zingefuatwa kwa usahihi kabisa Ubaya usingekuwepo. Namaanisha hat kifo jisingekuwepo.

Why would an omnibenevolent, omnipotent godhead make benevolence conditional?

 

[Kiranga]

There is article, and there is your argument. I was wasn't referencing the latter (on the dispute). Stick to the argument, spin off wont ad much to this.

The argument is, you do not know what you are talking about.

In a post that disputes my right understanding, you start by saying that you are disputing nothing!

Why should I take anything you write seriously?

 

[Ninachoma Dollar]

GOD is fair thou life hurts...

 

[Lisa Valentine]

The argument is, you do not know what you are talking about.

In a post that disputes my right understanding, you start by saying that you are disputing nothing!

Why should I take anything you write seriously?

Just because you saw the word nothing, you thought any article with "nothingness" will fit to your premises. We check the particular definitions that author proposes. The height of perfection as God need to be defined logically with the definitions fitting the proposed agent of creation. The nothingness has to be understood and not confused as vacuum matrix which Sidney Coleman will tell you it still has form and content. Perfect symmetry do not means elimination of everything or the situation where nothing exist but rather a situation where doing anything do not make any difference. Do you understand? Don't run around.

 

[Kiranga]

Just because you saw the word nothing, you thought any article with "nothingness" will fit to your premises. We check the particular definitions that author proposes. The height of perfection as God need to be defined logically with the definitions fitting the proposed agent of creation. The nothingness has to be understood and not confused as vacuum matrix which Sidney Coleman will tell you it still has form and content. Perfect symmetry do not means elimination of everything or the situation where nothing exist but rather a situation where doing anything do not make any difference. Do you understand? Don't run around.

You are totally evading the conundrum you got yourself in by talking in circles, by further talking in circles.

Just admit that, by starting with the premise that you are disputing nothing, and going forward to dispute my right understanding, you contrqdicted yourself in a major way.

Failure to admit that with mar your intwgrity to an irredeemable extent.

As to the article, which is at best a starting point approximation of some Roger Penrose mathematics whise font you dont have and package the author does not know, let alone the mathematics itself. You can be excused for thinking that the article is the final ace as opposed to an introductory gateway to whet your appetite.

The author converges to my point that nothingness is the height of perfection. This is mentioned several places in the article. Places you chose to ignore.

As to your assertion that perfect symmetry does not mean the elimination of everything, and that it neans a situagion where doing anything does not make any difference ignores the fact that the former is a subset of the later and a better candidate as perfect symmetry.

Since nothing has nothing to disturb nothing in the firts place.

Or better yet, in nothing.

Hapo kama umeulizwa "chagua jibu sahihi kuliko yote" umeshafeli mtihani.

 

[Nonda]

Mtu huyo nani?

Mtu huyo ni Kiranga.

Yeye anasema bing bang na ulimwengu vimeibuka vyenyewe tu.

 

[Kiranga]

Mtu huyo ni Kiranga.

Yeye anasema bing bang na ulimwengu vimeibuka vyenyewe tu.

Wapi? Unaweza kuniwekea link hapa?

 

[Lisa Valentine]

You are totally evading the conundrum you got yourself in by talking in circles, by further talking in circles.

Just admit that, by starting with the premise that you are disputing nothing, and going forward to dispute my right understanding, you contrqdicted yourself in a major way.

Failure to admit that with mar your intwgrity to an irredeemable extent.

As to the article, which is at best a starting point approximation of some Roger Penrose mathematics whise font you dont have and package the author does not know, let alone the mathematics itself. You can be excused for thinking that the article is the final ace as opposed to an introductory gateway to whet your appetite.

The author converges to my point that nothingness is the height of perfection. This is mentioned several places in the article. Places you chose to ignore.

As to your assertion that perfect symmetry does not mean the elimination of everything, and that it neans a situagion where doing anything does not make any difference ignores the fact that the former is a subset of the later and a better candidate as perfect symmetry.

Since nothing has nothing to disturb nothing in the firts place.

Or better yet, in nothing.

Hapo kama umeulizwa "chagua jibi sahihi kuliko yote" umeshafeli mtihani.

That is where you went wrong, thanks for narrating it that way as highlighted above. There are two types of nothing as per K.C Cole and putting them as subset of each other is fault and does not appear anywhere in mathematics. By definitions derived from mathematical equations that you can understand these are totally "different nothing" and confusing them has led you coming up with wrong supposition that the nothingness that is linked with perfect symmetry by Cole will lead to "eliminations" or the results will be the same as the other vacuum nothing which is not perfect symmetrical.

Your early premise was based on the line of thinking of nothing in a vacuum manner which is taken away by K.C. cole as the mathematical equal of perfect symmetry. Here nothingness definition do not based on emptiness, void, zero as you would wish.

Your "nothing" which rely on the physical laws of the universe we actually live in as you brought it forward that will lead to nothing existing not even God is not perfectly symmetrical thus not the nothingness in line with that of K.C Cole's. I am saying this because your argument was:

"So if god is the height of perfection, there would be nothing existing, not even god."

However, the nothingness that K.C. Cole suggests as which is what Edward Witten would put as perfect symmetrical embodies the natural set of laws in their ideal. Umeitetea argument yako kutokana na aina tofauti ya nothing ambayo inapelekea wewe kujiridhisha na wazo lako. Aina ya pili ya nothingness inaongelewa hapo haileti "there would be nothing existing, not even God". Things could exists in a perfect symmetry that no changes would appear when you do anything. Weather you go up or down, whether your travel backwards or front, hot or cold.

Author converges to your point? And still you didn't grasp the meaning of nothingness he is writing about!? of course its not easy.

 

[Kiranga]

That is where you went wrong, thanks for narrating it that way as highlighted above. There are two types of nothing as per K.C Cole and putting them as subset of each other is fault and does not appear anywhere in mathematics. By definitions derived from mathematical equations that you can understand these are totally "different nothing" and confusing them has led you coming up with wrong supposition that the nothingness that is linked with perfect symmetry by Cole will lead to "eliminations" or the results will be the same as the other vacuum nothing which is not perfect symmetrical.

Your early premise was based on the line of thinking of nothing in a vacuum manner which is taken away by K.C. cole as the mathematical equal of perfect symmetry. Here nothingness definition do not based on emptiness, void, zero as you would wish.

Your "nothing" which rely on the physical laws of the universe we actually live in as you brought it forward that will lead to nothing existing not even God is not perfectly symmetrical thus not the nothingness in line with that of K.C Cole's. I am saying this because your argument was:

"So if god is the height of perfection, there would be nothing existing, not even god."

However, the nothingness that K.C. Cole suggests as which is what Edward Witten would put as perfect symmetrical embodies the natural set of laws in their ideal. Umeitetea argument yako kutokana na aina tofauti ya nothing ambayo inapelekea wewe kujiridhisha na wazo lako. Aina ya pili ya nothingness inaongelewa hapo haileti "there would be nothing existing, not even God". Things could exists in a perfect symmetry that no changes would appear when you do anything. Weather you go up or down, whether your travel backwards or front, hot or cold.

Author converges to your point? And still you didn't grasp the meaning of nothingness he is writing about!? of course its not easy.

Where did I say that my original premise was based on nothing in a vacuum manner?

Do you understand that a vacuum is not nothing since it has space?

Do you understand that space itself has energy, and energy is convertible to matter per Einstein, and therefore as long as a vacuum exists in space, it canot be nothing?

Do you understand that the perfection of anything that exists in space is flawed by virtual particles popping up anywhere and everywehere randomly due to the energy field of space?

 

[Mbepo yamba]

Kiranga akiingia shida huanza

 

[Kiranga]

Kiranga akiingia shida huanza

Mbaraka Mwinshehe alishaimba.

"Kila siku shida shida, haiishi mpaka siku ya mwishooo".

Kwa hiyo usitake kumsingizia Kiranga shida ambazo zilikuwapo kabla hajazaliwa na inaelekea zitakuwapo baada ya yeye kuondoka hapa duniani.