Alie anza kutoa madai ya uwepo wa Mungu ni wewe , ukadai Mungu ni mueza wa yote , mwenye upendo na huruma na mwenye kusamehe.Contradictions zipi ? Nina haki ya kukuuliza na wewe una wajibu wa kujibu. Kushindwa kumshika mwizi haiondoi ukweli kuwa kuna wizi umefanywa na mtu. Hivyo wewe kukataa kata kata kuwa ni mtu kakwiba unatakiwa kutoa ushahidi mbadala nani kakwiba.
Kichwa chako kiko sawa kweli? Toka lini kitu kisichokuwepo kikathibitishwa kuwa hakipo? Kitu kama hakipo, hakijawahi kuwepo inabaki kuwa hivyo ila kwa kitu kilichopo ndiyo kunapaswa kuwa na proof kwamba kipo.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.
Wezi wakiiba nyumbani kwangu nikasema kuna watu wamebomoa kwangu wakaiba, wewe ukasema kwa nguvu zote kuwa si watu wamebomoa, hivyo na wewe una burden ya ku prove kuwa si watu bali viumbe fulani ambavyo vimekwiba.
Uko sawa, mkuu.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.
You’re right that lack of proof doesn’t automatically disprove God.Uko sawa, mkuu.
If someone claims “God exists,” they should provide reasons.
However, your conclusion goes beyond merely rejecting an unproven claim. You are not only saying “the claim has not been proven.” You are concluding that God does not exist.
That conclusion is also a claim.
Failing to prove that something exists does not automatically prove that it does not exist. Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of non-existence.
If someone fails to prove aliens exist, it does not logically follow that aliens do not exist. It simply means the claim has not been demonstrated.
So there are two separate statements here:
“The claim that God exists has not been proven.”
“Therefore God does not exist.”
The first statement challenges evidence.
The second statement makes a definitive claim about reality.
Once you move from statement one to statement two, you are no longer just dismissing a claim. You are asserting a conclusion. And any assertion about reality requires justification.
If you choose to remain at “I am not convinced,” then that is consistent.
But if you conclude “therefore God does not exist,” then you also carry a burden to explain why that conclusion is logically necessary.
That keeps the discussion logically fair.
Negative Proofs:Uko sawa, mkuu.
If someone claims “God exists,” they should provide reasons.
However, your conclusion goes beyond merely rejecting an unproven claim. You are not only saying “the claim has not been proven.” You are concluding that God does not exist.
That conclusion is also a claim.
Failing to prove that something exists does not automatically prove that it does not exist. Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of non-existence.
If someone fails to prove aliens exist, it does not logically follow that aliens do not exist. It simply means the claim has not been demonstrated.
So there are two separate statements here:
“The claim that God exists has not been proven.”
“Therefore God does not exist.”
The first statement challenges evidence.
The second statement makes a definitive claim about reality.
Once you move from statement one to statement two, you are no longer just dismissing a claim. You are asserting a conclusion. And any assertion about reality requires justification.
If you choose to remain at “I am not convinced,” then that is consistent.
But if you conclude “therefore God does not exist,” then you also carry a burden to explain why that conclusion is logically necessary.
That keeps the discussion logically fair.