Thibitisha kwamba HAKUNA MUNGU

Thibitisha kwamba HAKUNA MUNGU

Allen Kilewella

JF-Expert Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Posts
25,158
Reaction score
48,422
Nawaandikia Infropreneur na Kiranga makuhani wakuu wa Atheists wa JF, salaam.

Kwenye mada hii nataka mtuthibitishie kuwa hakuna Mungu.

Kwenye kuthibitisha kwenu, msiishie tu kusema hayupo kwa kuwa hayupo, tupeni hoja zenye mantiki ni kwa nini hayupo.

Na msikwepe hoja kwa kusema hayupo kwa kuwa wanaosema yupo wanashindwa kuthibitisha kuwa yupo. Nyie ndiyo mnatakiwa mseme kwa nini hakuna Mungu.

Hoja zenu zijitegemee bila ya kuegemea kukosoa wanaosema kuwa Mungu yupo.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Nimeshakataa kutumia dhana za wanaosema Kuna Mungu. Kama hakuna Mungu Jenga dhana yako ni kwa nini hakuna Mungu.

Kwani wanaosema kuna mungu wanasema hivyo kwa kuwa kuna wanaosema hakuna Mungu?
Mzigo wa uthibitisho unamwangukia mdai wa hoja .
atheism inakataa dai lisilo thibitishwa , likithibishwa hakuna atakae kataa dai lako .
 
Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Kwanza inabidi utambue kwamba, Falsafa ya uthibitisho inamtaka mtu aliyeanza kudai kitu kipo, ndio ana mzigo wa kutoa uthibitisho wake.

Ndio maana ukimtuhumu mtu fulani kwa wizi, Wewe mwenye madai ya kwamba mtu huyo ni mwizi, ndio una mzigo wa kuthibitisha.

Madai ya kwamba "Mungu yupo" ni ya kwenu nyie Theists. Sio ya kwetu sisi Atheists. Ninyi Theists ndio mna mzigo wa kuthibitisha uwepo wa huyo Mungu. Kwa sababu madai ni yenu.

Madai ya kwamba Mungu yupo, yalianzia kwenu nyie waamini Mungu(Theists). Ninyi ndio mlianza kudai kuna Mungu. Hivyo ninyi ndio mnapaswa kuthibitisha madai yenu ya kwamba Mungu yupo.

Ukishindwa kuthibitisha Mungu yupo. Ina maana kwamba madai yako ni ya UONGO. Na huyo Mungu unayedai yupo, Hayupo.

The burden of proof in religion generally rests on the person making a positive assertion (theist claiming God exists), requiring them to provide evidence to support their claim. It follows the principle onus probandi, where the party asserting a position must substantiate it, rather than the party denying it.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia.
 
Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Kwanza inabidi utambue kwamba, Falsafa ya uthibitisho inamtaka mtu aliyeanza kudai kitu kipo, ndio ana mzigo wa kutoa uthibitisho wake.

Ndio maana ukimtuhumu mtu fulani kwa wizi, Wewe mwenye madai ya kwamba mtu huyo ni mwizi, ndio una mzigo wa kuthibitisha.

Madai ya kwamba "Mungu yupo" ni ya kwenu nyie Theists. Sio ya kwetu sisi Atheists. Ninyi Theists ndio mna mzigo wa kuthibitisha uwepo wa huyo Mungu. Kwa sababu madai ni yenu.

Madai ya kwamba Mungu yupo, yalianzia kwenu nyie waamini Mungu(Theists). Ninyi ndio mlianza kudai kuna Mungu. Hivyo ninyi ndio mnapaswa kuthibitisha madai yenu ya kwamba Mungu yupo.

Ukishindwa kuthibitisha Mungu yupo. Ina maana kwamba madai yako ni ya UONGO. Na huyo Mungu unayedai yupo, Hayupo.

The burden of proof in religion generally rests on the person making a positive assertion (theist claiming God exists), requiring them to provide evidence to support their claim. It follows the principle onus probandi, where the party asserting a position must substantiate it, rather than the party denying it.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia.

Kukosa ushahidi wa kitu si ushahidi wa kutokuwepo kwake.

Kusema “Mungu hayupo kwa sababu hujathibitishwa” ni kosa la mantiki.

Uislamu haumwelezi Mungu kama kitu cha kimaabara kinachopimwa. Kumtaka Mungu athibitishwe kwa vifaa vya kisayansi ni kosa la kategoria. Tunathibitisha athari kwa sababu, si kiini kwa macho.


Kila kilichoanza kuwepo kina sababu
Ulimwengu ulianza kuwepo

Hivyo una sababu isiyoanza kuwepo (Muumbaji)

Kusema ulimwengu “ulijitokeza tu” bila sababu kunakiuka kanuni ile ile ya burden of proof.

Kwa hiyo, atheism si msimamo wa neutral, bali ni dai jingine la kimetafizikia linalohitaji hoja.

Uislamu hautaki “imani pofu”, bali unatoa hoja za kiakili na kimantiki.
 
Kukosa ushahidi wa kitu si ushahidi wa kutokuwepo kwake.

Kusema “Mungu hayupo kwa sababu hujathibitishwa” ni kosa la mantiki.

Uislamu haumwelezi Mungu kama kitu cha kimaabara kinachopimwa. Kumtaka Mungu athibitishwe kwa vifaa vya kisayansi ni kosa la kategoria. Tunathibitisha athari kwa sababu, si kiini kwa macho.


Kila kilichoanza kuwepo kina sababu
Ulimwengu ulianza kuwepo

Hivyo una sababu isiyoanza kuwepo (Muumbaji)

Kusema ulimwengu “ulijitokeza tu” bila sababu kunakiuka kanuni ile ile ya burden of proof.

Kwa hiyo, atheism si msimamo wa neutral, bali ni dai jingine la kimetafizikia linalohitaji hoja.

Uislamu hautaki “imani pofu”, bali unatoa hoja za kiakili na kimantiki.
Wewe jamaa na akili mnemba zako unaharibu mada
 
Nimeshakataa kutumia dhana za wanaosema Kuna Mungu. Kama hakuna Mungu Jenga dhana yako ni kwa nini hakuna Mungu.

Kwani wanaosema kuna mungu wanasema hivyo kwa kuwa kuna wanaosema hakuna Mungu?
Negative Proofs: It is generally unreasonable to demand proof of a negative, particularly if there is no evidence to support the positive claim.

Yani wewe unayedai kitu kipo huna uthibitisho nacho, Halafu unataka uthibitisho kwa wanao kanusha uwepo wa kitu hicho.

Kama unakataa hakuna Mungu, na hapohapo huwezi kuthibitisha kuna Mungu.

Sasa unataka nini zaidi?

Umeshindwa kuthibitisha Mungu yupo na bado unakataa kwamba Mungu hayupo.

What else do you want?
 
Back
Top Bottom