Ina maana watu wote Duniani tumepotea? Ni nani ataiona mbingu?

[Joseph lebai]

Al-Islam Watan, you are right, a lot of contradictions, if God is omnipotent He cannot be benevolent and vice versa. Try to approach one philosopher Leibniz about the problem of evil.Did God really created evil?

 

[Mr the dragon]

So you are basically saying you don't know for sure God exists. Not even close.

You are just enjoying wishful thinking.

Not everything can be proved scientifically,Even science itself fails to give accurate and convincing answers about various existing circumstances.

I'm happy that you studied science. To be honesty I know very little about science but Let us jump to the statements made by among of giant figures in science and what they spoken

"The more you learn science the more you know there is God" by Albert Einstein.

"Gravity may put planets into motion but without divine power it can not put them into a such circulating motion as they have about the sun.and for this reason as well as other reason,I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to an intelligent agent" by Sir Isaac Newton.

"In absence of other proof the thumb alone would convince on God's existence" by sir Isaac Newton

Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Arien]

There will probably always be doubt (notice that even this statement has doubt, hence "probably").

So identifying what is reasonable doubt and what is unreasonable doubt is crucial to charting our way to truth.

What is "beyond reasonable doubt"?

What is your threshold?

And why is that threshold the threshold?

to be honest i used the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' since its what most pple consider as a sort of absolute truth. but i dont believe such a thing exists.



the problem i have noticed is that most pple here are biased towards their thinking. the theists challenge the atheists biasely and vice versa. pple dont have an open mind to let them learn why the other doesnt believe what he/she believes. thus my 'threshold' is keeping an open mind since(reason why its my threshold) i believe its the only way one can maybe be able to understand the other.

 

[Al-Watan]

Not everything can be proved scientifically,Even science itself fails to give accurate and convincing answers about various existing circumstances.

I'm happy that you studied science. To be honesty I know very little about science but Let us jump to the statements made by among of giant figures in science and what they spoken

"The more you learn science the more you know there is God" by Albert Einstein.

"Gravity may put planets into motion but without divine power it can not put them into a such circulating motion as they have about the sun.and for this reason as well as other reason,I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to an intelligent agent" by Sir Isaac Newton.

"In absence of other proof the thumb alone would convince on God's existence" by sir Isaac Newton

Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

If not everything can be proved scientifically, does that prove god exists?

Science is not established by what some giant said. That is religion.

Science is established by investigation.

The problem is you have not studied science.

I have studied multiple biographies of Einstein and Newton.

Newton is so far removed from modern science that in his time he was into alchemy and all sorts of crank projects.

He believed in a non-relativistic world where time is constant for all observers.

Einstein corrected that.

Do you still want to go by Newtons every word in a world where there are better sources?

Einstein confused a lot of people by using the word "God" loosely. By God he meant more "the mysteries of the Universe" than the personal God who created the heavens and earth.

Do you know Einstein did not believe in the personal God?

 

[Al-Watan]

to be honest i used the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' since its what most pple consider as a sort of absolute truth. but i dont believe such a thing exists.



the problem i have noticed is that most pple here are biased towards their thinking. the theists challenge the atheists biasely and vice versa. pple dont have an open mind to let them learn why the other doesnt believe what he/she believes. thus my 'threshold' is keeping an open mind since(reason why its my threshold) i believe its the only way one can maybe be able to understand the other.

So you are basically saying you don't know what you wrote here yourself when you so authoritatively wrote about "beyond reasonable doubt" like some standard you truly understand.

Why should I take you seriously?

I mean if you don't know jack about what you wrote then, why should I grant you the courtesy of thinking that you know anything about what you are writing now?

 

[ZEE LA HEKIMA]

Wee Alwatan na wengine wote mnaosema hakuna uthibitisho kuwa Mungu yupo hebu kwanza mnijibu haya maswali halafu niwaeleze how to prove kwamba Mungu yupo. 1. Mtu anayechangia huu uzi anatumia akili. Hiyo akili yake ni kitu gani na iko wapi? Kama akili inakaa kwenye ubongo mbona ubongo za watu zinafanana lakini akili zinatofautiana ? 2. Je, wewe unayetaka kuthibitisha Mungu yupo au la unaweza kueleza ilikuwaje mpaka kila binadamu akawa ana alama ya kidole gumba na DNA tofauti na wenzake? 3. Ili kuthibitisha kitu fulani kipo (kwa mfano umeme) ni lazima uuone au kuona utendaji kazi wake kunatosha kuthibitisha?

 

[Prince Luanda]

Jibu surat al imran aya no 19

Fafanua humu kuna watu wa dini tofauti

 

[Arien]

So you are basically saying you don't know what you wrote here yourself when you so authoritatively wrote about "beyond reasonable doubt" like some standard you truly understand.

Why should I take you seriously?

I mean if you don't know jack about what you wrote then, why should I grant you the courtesy of thinking that you know anything about what you are writing now?

bruh where did i say that i believe so 'authoritatively' about 'beyond reasonable doubt'?? i merely wrote as such after reading the previous comments & deducing how most pple in here are thinking.



and lets get this straight fam with all due respect i never asked u to give me the courtesy for anything! u are free to think what u want....it honestly doesnt matter to me.

 

[Al-Watan]

bruh where did i say that i believe so 'authoritatively' about 'beyond reasonable doubt'?? i merely wrote as such after reading the previous comments & deducing how most pple in here are thinking.



and lets get this straight fam with all due respect i never asked u to give me the courtesy for anything! u are free to think what u want....it honestly doesnt matter to me.

You wrote authoritatively with not so much as a caveat emptor.

It obviously matter enough for you to reply.

So don't try to act like it doesn't matter that much to you.

 

[Arien]

You wrote authoritatively with not so much as a caveat emptor.

It obviously matter enough for you to reply.

So don't try to act like it doesn't matter that much to you.

if the post didnt stretch that then my bad.




but dont think just b'se somebody replies to u then it generally means he/she cares. it might be the individual simply wants to fully understand the depth of ur ignorance & temperament

 

[Al-Watan]

if the post didnt stretch that then my bad.




but dont think just b'se somebody replies to u then it generally means he/she cares. it might be the individual simply wants to fully understand the depth of ur ignorance & temperament

Then they still care enough to want to fully understand the depth of my ignorance.

The ones who really dont care would think I am not worth understanding and therefore not worth engaging at all.

You are contradicting yourself in a fundamental way.

So you do care. You just front like you dont.

Stop fronting.

 

[kasulamkombe]

WAJINGA NDIO WALIWAO! NDIO MAANA WAZUNGU HAWATAKI HUU UJINGA SASA INA MAANA HAWA WOTE WATAPOTEA. DINI KUBWA ZOTE ZIMEANZIA SEHEMU MOJA ILA WACHUNGUZE HAO WATU ZILIPOANZIA HIZI DINI KUBWA.MAISHA YAO NA IMANI ZAO.

 

[Mr the dragon]

If not everything can be proved scientifically, does that prove god exists?

Science is not established by what some giant said. That is religion.

Science is established by investigation.

The problem is you have not studied science.

I have studied multiple biographies of Einstein and Newton.

Newton is so far removed from modern science that in his time he was into alchemy and all sorts of crank projects.

He believed in a non-relativistic world where time is constant for all observers.

Einstein corrected that.

Do you still want to go by Newtons every word in a world where there are better sources?

Einstein confused a lot of people by using the word "God" loosely. By God he meant more "the mysteries of the Universe" than the personal God who created the heavens and earth.

Do you know Einstein did not believe in the personal God?

That's why I told you all descriptions upon God bases on faith.Science is concrete while faith is abstruct.Joining concrete and abstruct to bear results will leave you contradicted.

Science and faith are like brothers beared by philosophy.that works independently and differently and you can not separate them from human being.

God can not be proved scientifically it is a matter of believing.



Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Vumilika]

Twende kwa mantiki.

Unajua ukishaandika "mambo ya roho hakuna ayajuaye isipokuwa Mungu" wakati dhana ya kuwepo kwa Mungu ni jambo la roho, na wewe si Mungu, umeshakubali kwamba hujui kama Mungu yupo?

Kuwepo kwa Mungu si dhana kwa imani yangu bali ni uhakika, wale wasiyoamini Mungu ndiyo kwao ni dhana.
Mungu ana sifa mbalimbali zilizokamilika na ametakasika na sifa za upungufu, miongoni mwa sifa zake Yeye ni Muumba wa kila kitu, hivyo ndivyo alivyojulikana na hata kabla ya wakina Enstein na Newton, imani ya kuamini Mungu ni ya kale tokea mwanadamu wa mwanzo kuishi. Na binadamu kutokana na uwezo wake wa ufahamu uliyo na mipaka inakuwa vigumu kuelewa kila kitu, kwa hali hiyo basi ni vigumu kufahamu kila kitu, kwani hata wanaokanusha kuwa hakuna Mungu wamesoma kwa waliyopita kuhusu hiyo dhana ya hakuna Mungu.

 

[Al-Watan]

That's why I told you all descriptions upon God bases on faith.Science is concrete while faith is abstruct.Joining concrete and abstruct to bear results will leave you contradicted.

Science and faith are like brothers beared by philosophy.that works independently and differently and you can not separate them from human being.

God can not be proved scientifically it is a matter of believing.



Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

You are not correct.

Science is based on faith. On reasonable faith. On faith that is based on reason. On faith that is tested.

When I prepare for a meeting tomorrow, I am doing that by faith. I am not sure that the sun will not supernovae tonight in a way that there will be no tomorrow because tge earth will be blown to smithereens.

So first of all science has no problem with faith. Without faith, you can have nothing to experiment on. The basis if an experimwnt is to verify a certain notion that us based in faith.

The question is not faith versus reason. The question is, hiw reasonabke is your faith?

I have faith the sun will be there tomorrow. I don't know this for sure. This is why I call this faith. Science and our experience have demonstrated that we can pretty much count on the sun being there. Scientific calculations vased on the consumptionnof hydrogen in nuclear processes gives the sun another 5 billion years.

So having faith that the sun will be there tomorrow is not unreasonable.

Canceling your plans for tomorrow because you are afraid that the sun might not be there tomorrow is unreasonable.

So the question becomes, what is reasonable faith? What is unreasonable?

Believing in God is not reasonabke faith because it is not logically consistent.

Science on the other hand, is reasonabke faith, because it is based in logical cinsistency.

 

[Mr the dragon]

Then, what if a person cancels plans tommorow because he thought he would die tommorow.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable?


Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Mr the dragon]

You are not correct.

Science is based on faith. On reasonable faith. On faith that is based on reason. On faith that is tested.

When I prepare for a meeting tomorrow, I am doing that by faith. I am not sure that the sun will not supernovae tonight in a way that there will be no tomorrow because tge earth will be blown to smithereens.

So first of all science has no problem with faith. Without faith, you can have nothing to experiment on. The basis if an experimwnt is to verify a certain notion that us based in faith.

The question is not faith versus reason. The question is, hiw reasonabke is your faith?

I have faith the sun will be there tomorrow. I don't know this for sure. This is why I call this faith. Science and our experience have demonstrated that we can pretty much count on the sun being there. Scientific calculations vased on the consumptionnof hydrogen in nuclear processes gives the sun another 5 billion years.

So having faith that the sun will be there tomorrow is not unreasonable.

Canceling your plans for tomorrow because you are afraid that the sun might not be there tomorrow is unreasonable.

So the question becomes, what is reasonable faith? What is unreasonable?

Believing in God is not reasonabke faith because it is not logically consistent.

Science on the other hand, is reasonabke faith, because it is based in logical cinsistency.

Then,what if a person cancels plans because he thought that he would die tommorow.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable?

Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Mr the dragon]

Or a person refuses to buy a bed because he will not get into sleeping.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable

Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[ZEE LA HEKIMA]

Ooh! Al Watan! You say science is based on reasonable faith so it should be believed? Do you know that the same science you are talking about used to state categorically in the middle ages that the world is flat and that people were executed for daring to say that the world is like a sphere? Do you know that just about a century ago the science you are talking about used to say that the atom is the smallest particle of matter while years later science proved itself wrong on this point?

 

[Al-Watan]

Then,what if a person cancels plans because he thought that he would die tommorow.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable?

Sent from my SM-J110H using JamiiForums mobile app

It depends on the data he has.

If he is sentenced by the state to be hanged for murder today, and everything seems to point that he will be hanged today,there is no sense to plan for a dinner tomorrow.

But if he is just fearful that a sudden thunder will come out of nowhere and strike him dead, what are the chances of that happening? That would be highly unreasonable.

That is the difference between reasonable and unreasonable to me.