Who created God? Who made him? Where did he come from?

Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
May 15, 2006
85,266
2,000
Kwenye threead moja a life after death, Kiranga stood firm that no one knows the truth about that. But the way he insists that there's no creator..........kinda like double standards to me
If no one knows the truth about it then it is unreasonable to say he or she doesn't exist because by saying he or she doesn't exist is tantamount to saying you know that he or she doesn't exist.
 
Mimtamu

Mimtamu

JF-Expert Member
Jan 27, 2012
365
195
HERI ASEMAYE MUNGU YUPO KISHA AKAMKOSA SIKU YA MWISHO NA OLE WAKE ASEMAE HAKUNA MUNGU KISHA AKAMKUTA.. Yanini kujitaabisha? Tulishaonywa kuwa Mungu hachunguziki
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Jan 29, 2009
51,486
2,000
Negative! Not being able to determine one way or the other doesn't mean ending the quest to determine. For the inquiring minds it just means more work is needed. More work means perhaps a change of methods, etc.



Again, it's not fence sitting. It just the same as saying what is put out there as proof is not sufficient enough to make a determination either way, therefore, a redoubling of efforts is perhaps needed while keeping an open mind that maybe one day someone will be able to conclusively determine it.

Look how long it took for the Poincare's conjecture to be proven. Had people said it wasn't possible for it to be proven, Grigori Perelman probably would have gave up on it long before he was able to prove it.

So I say it is reasonable to keep an open mind and that's where the reasonableness comes in.
If you wait to have enough info to make a decision, you will not be able to say that 1 + 1 = 2.

You should be able to say, even with qualifiers like "based on the information we have today, god does not/ does exist".

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we work with the information we have, not the information we want. Then we gradually converge. The point of convergence has been that god does not exist, for the last 500 years at least. If it will take us another 500 years to show this beyond doubt do you want to wait for another 500 years?

You should be able to use qualifiers.Or even use a margin of error probability system by saying "based on the info we have today, we have a 995 chance of god not actually existing"

That would be more reasonable that fence sitting until you have all the info, which is never going to happen, based on what we know.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Jan 29, 2009
51,486
2,000
Kwenye threead moja a life after death, Kiranga stood firm that no one knows the truth about that. But the way he insists that there's no creator..........kinda like double standards to me
Nimeelezea vizuri sana hapa

Soma, halafu kama bado una maswali uliza.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Jan 29, 2009
51,486
2,000
If no one knows the truth about it then it is unreasonable to say he or she doesn't exist because by saying he or she doesn't exist is tantamount to saying you know that he or she doesn't exist.
No one knows the truth on whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not.

Yet almost the entire thinking population of this world carry on as if the sun will rise tomorrow.

Is it unreasonable to live today as if the sun will rise tomorrow?

By your logic, you make it seem unreasonable.Because no one knows the truth for sure.

You don't need to be 100% sure (an illusion anyway) to be reasonable.

And this question is not on the hinge of 50% by any stretch of imagination.
 
MaxShimba

MaxShimba

JF-Expert Member
Apr 11, 2008
35,814
1,250
Good luck explaining the difference between atheism and agnosticism hapa.

As to who created god, of course man created "god". The concept, not the actual.

The actual being an elaborate farcical fiction, with more holes than Swiss cheese nevertheless.
Bogus post.

Can you prove to us that you are not a WOMAN. Yeah, you created that concept girl.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Jan 29, 2009
51,486
2,000
Bogus post.

Can you prove to us that you are not a WOMAN. Yeah, you created that concept girl.
No one can prove anything. Proof is an illusion.

And of course, I can't prove that.

Because, no one can prove anything.
 
Nyani Ngabu

Nyani Ngabu

Platinum Member
May 15, 2006
85,266
2,000
If you wait to have enough info to make a decision, you will not be able to say that 1 + 1 = 2.
Not true. Not true because it depends on what it is. Some things are easy to determine while others aren't. So even by saying that you don't have enough info to definitively make a call one way or the other is also making a decision. Decisions don't have to be between two choices only.

You should be able to say, even with qualifiers like "based on the information we have today, god does not/ does exist".
You are buttressing my point above - based on the information that is available to date, I can't definitively make a call whether god exists or not. Now tell me Pontiff, what is wrong with that?

To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we work with the information we have, not the information we want.
Right...

Then we gradually converge.
True

The point of convergence has been that god does not exist, for the last 500 years at least.
Nope, the information we have so far is inconclusive to get us to a convergence point.

If it will take us another 500 years to show this beyond doubt do you want to wait for another 500 years?
Why not? It took almost a century for the Poincare's conjecture to be proven, what is 500 years for god?

You should be able to use qualifiers.
And that's exactly what I do.

Or even use a margin of error probability system by saying "based on the info we have today, we have a 995 chance of god not actually existing"
Based on the info we have to date, we can't conclusively tell whether god does really exist or not.

And
That would be more reasonable that fence sitting until you have all the info, which is never going to happen, based on what we know.
See, that's why the difference between atheists and agnostics is marginal. It seems like we agree on almost 99% except that one - conclusion. Don't you think?
 
MBWA WA MANZESE

MBWA WA MANZESE

JF-Expert Member
Mar 14, 2013
1,624
1,225
Wakristo na waislamu hupatwa na kigugumizi kikubwa pindi waulizwapo swali hili na watu wasio amini kuhusu uwepo wa Mungu. Kuanzia leo, haupaswi tena kuwa na kigugumizi pindi uulizwapo swali hili, kwani majibu ya kisayansi ya swali hili yanapatikana.. Kufahamu zaidi kuhusu majibu ya swali hili gumu lakini muhimu, tafadhali tembelea ; http;//www.mungwakabili.blogspot.com . MUNGU AKUBARIKI SANA.



Ukitaka kufahamu kuhusu masuala mbalimbali ya kiimani , tafadhali tembelea blogu ya.

ULIMWENGU USIONEKANA


Mungwa Kabili ni Mwandishi na Mtafiti kuhusu masuala yanayo husiana na imani pamoja na ulimwengu usio onekana.
Nothing but fear, without fear no government, no religion, no everything you live by and hope for.
 
K

kichakare

Member
Apr 5, 2012
87
70
YEYE yupo ambaye, yupo,alikuwepo na ataendelea kuwepo. Muulize farao na jeshi lake walichofanywa.
 
Kiranga

Kiranga

JF-Expert Member
Jan 29, 2009
51,486
2,000
Not true. Not true because it depends on what it is. Some things are easy to determine while others aren't. So even by saying that you don't have enough info to definitively make a call one way or the other is also making a decision. Decisions don't have to be between two choices only.
What is "enough information" anyway? Is a decision to postpone deciding any difference than not deciding? Where is the distinction?

You are granted waving precision for the sake of decisiveness, what is your basis on postponement? It surely cannot be accuracy. It surely cannot be because there is an equal amount of equally convincing arguments down to the iota on both sides of the questions.

What is it then?

You are buttressing my point above - based on the information that is available to date, I can't definitively make a call whether god exists or not. Now tell me Pontiff, what is wrong with that?
Certainly, with an encyclical.

Perhaps a more insightful approach - than the simplistic right/ wrong labeling- would be to examine the finer details.

Are you talking about information available todate or information available to you todate? There is a big and important distinction. A blind man may be fully justified in saying, based on information available to him, the sun does not exist, that does not make that to be a fact.

Moreover, it is worthwhile to zero in on the specific information. What information are you referring to?

Nope, the information we have so far is inconclusive to get us to a convergence point.
Let's get to the nitty gritty. What information are you referring to?

Why not? It took almost a century for the Poincare's conjecture to be proven, what is 500 years for god?
Because there is no reason that this question would be settled in 500 years. It is entirely possible that the question is not knowable just as it is unknowable that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Is it unreasonable to use the past experience which converges towards the sun rising tomorrow, even as we do not know for sure that that will be the case?

And that's exactly what I do.
Whatever qualifiers you are using are taxing you without any benefit.I am afraid you are getting the disadvantage of using qualifiers (you are not comprehensive and definitive) without even benefiting from the advantages of using qualifies ( converging systematically) which in theory should converge towards discarding qualifiers.

At this rate, you will always use qualifiers and not converge anywhere. This is why, despite all protestations, I termed agnosticism as indecisiveness.



Based on the info we have to date, we can't conclusively tell whether god does really exist or not.
Again, we would do well to concentrate on examining the info, with details. The info I have today shows that god is becoming irrelevant with each passing day, and at some point down the line he will be a quaint object of nostalgic sentimentality for future historians when they ponder the human psychology and why it took us so long to admit that there is no god.


See, that's why the difference between atheists and agnostics is marginal. It seems like we agree on almost 99% except that one - conclusion. Don't you think?
The difference between atheists and agnostics is the one between a general who wants to examine all of Newtons equations anew, and Einstein's relativity as well, conduct all experiments involved, just to be sure that he can fire a gun at close range and kill his enemy.

This general is the agnostic one, he is sure to lose the war.

The atheist general is decisive and fires at once based on past experiences.

A sure fighting chance.

Patton did not win the war because he wanted all the trajectories figured out to the millimeter.

He was decisive.

This difference could prove to be a matter of life and death, tell the dead soldier that he is "dead only marginally".
 
Money Stunna

Money Stunna

JF-Expert Member
Aug 9, 2011
13,084
2,000
apa kuna harufu ya shetani ngoja niondoke
 
introvert

introvert

JF-Expert Member
Sep 21, 2010
1,319
2,000
Here we go again.. and again.. but time will tell.
 
MaxShimba

MaxShimba

JF-Expert Member
Apr 11, 2008
35,814
1,250
No one can prove anything. Proof is an illusion.

And of course, I can't prove that.

Because, no one can prove anything.
If you can't prove anything, what the hell are you doing here?

Prove to me that you are not a Woman. Do you see who is in illusion?

Stop using joints girl.
 
H1N1

H1N1

JF-Expert Member
May 29, 2009
4,214
2,000
Good luck explaining the difference between atheism and agnosticism hapa.

As to who created god, of course man created "god". The concept, not the actual.

The actual being an elaborate farcical fiction, with more holes than Swiss cheese nevertheless.
Madhara ya kuishi na msongo wa mawazo kwa muda mrefu ndiyo haya....!!!
 
H1N1

H1N1

JF-Expert Member
May 29, 2009
4,214
2,000
Hofu ya wengi ni baada ya kifo, na pia wamewekeza maisha yao kwenye dini hawataki kujiongeza!!!
kwanza, hii umefanya tafiti au umekopy sehemu??!!!
Nitakufuata huko blog.
Sp
Mimi sina hofu ya kifo,naamini Mungu yupo na hakuumbwa. unatumia akili ya binadam aliyeumbwa au ni akili ya advanced chips ? Wewe ni utafiti gani umefanya kuwa tuaminio uwepo wa Mungu ni ksababu ya hofu ya kifo ? Ni wapumbavu tu wanaohofu kifo,hofu haibadili ukweli juu ya uwepo wa Kifo,kifo sio probability ni fact, sasa kama binadam mwenye akili timamu utaogopaje kifo ? Hebu jitahidi kutumia akili vizuri ili ulete sababu zenye mshiko juu ya kumchukia Mungu na waaminio kuwa kuna Mungu.
 
Top Bottom