tintingz:
We have tools to observe this and they are very obvious.

Mister man, how can you observe Allah?

Who created your tools and who created those things?. You havent answered that

Empiree:
Who created your tools and who created those things?. You havent answered that

Oga, answer my question, how can we observe Allah? I want empirical evidence.

lanrexlan:
Rilwayne?!

Yes Sir!

tintingz:


Oga, answer my question, how can we observe Allah? I want empirical evidence.

Can physical or empirical process explain all phenomena?

Riduane:


Can physical or empirical process explain all phenomena?

Yes.

Unless you have superhuman wisdom beyond your 5 senses.

Born2Freak:


Yes.
Unless you have superhuman wisdom beyond your 5 senses.

You don't have to have superhuman sense to know observe God. You just have to be truthful to yourself. Just like the belief that the past was once the present, the existence of God is also a self-evident truth.

tintingz:


Oga, answer my question, how can we observe Allah? I want empirical evidence.

Science focuses its attention on only what observations can solve. However, Allah, by definition, is a Being who is outside the physical universe. Therefore, any direct observation of Him is impossible.

However, you may argue that indirect observation may support or negate God’s existence. This is not true. Any form of indirect observation could never negate God’s existence, because it is like saying an observed phenomenon can negate an unobserved phenomenon.

In addition, there are other sources of knowledge that science cannot justify, yet they are indispensable and fundamental sources of knowledge. This implies that science is not the only way to establish truths about the world and reality. The limitations of the scientific method demonstrate that science cannot answer all questions. Some of its main limitations include that:

It is limited to observation.
It is morally neutral.
It cannot delve into the personal.
It cannot answer why things happen.
It cannot address some metaphysical questions.
It cannot prove necessary truths.

So how can you observe something you can't see?

Riduane:


Yes Sir!

You no ask of me. Me self go get money ooo

Born2Freak:


Yes.

Unless you have superhuman wisdom beyond your 5 senses.

Philosophical naturalism is the view that the universe is like a closed system; there is nothing outside the universe that interferes with it, and there is no God or anything related to the supernatural. A key aspect of philosophical naturalism is that all phenomena can be explained via physical processes.

Philosophical naturalism forms the ‘lenses’ that are put on most atheists' eyes to understand the world. If you wore some yellow tinted glasses, what colour are you going to see? Yellow. Similarly, if you put on the lenses of philosophical naturalism, all you will see is a universe without God.

But is that really true? No. Why?

Philosophical Naturalism is incoherent, as it blindly believes that everything can be explained via physical processes, despite a number of recalcitrant facts; in other words, facts that resist a theory. Philosophical naturalism cannot adequately explain the hard problem of consciousness, the finitude and dependency of the universe, the fine-tuning of the laws and the order in the universe, the existence of objective morals and much more.

lanrexlan:
You no ask of me. Me self go get money ooo

Baba, I never get money oh. I'm still an undergraduate oh. Na you suppose dey send me money now, but I never see anything, and I no vex sha.

tintingz:


Oga, answer my question, how can we observe Allah? I want empirical evidence.

You observe Him by observing 5 daily salat

Riduane:


Baba, I never get money oh. I'm still an undergraduate oh. Na you suppose dey send me money now, but I never see anything, and I no vex sha.

I guess we are in the same category then, we both dey look for money. But you suppose get money na, at least you were the faculty president for two years. You no dey collect pension ni

lanrexlan:


I guess we are in the same category then, we both dey look for money. But you suppose get money na, at least you were the faculty president for two years. You no dey collect pension ni

Ah! Why you so forgetful?

I'm actually a department president and I only got elected last year. And we're not really getting any money. The way Association is run in University of Ilorin ehn, if Nigerian government is run like that, Nigeria would be better than it currently is
We're not getting monthly payment sha.. We're only getting some stipend at the end of the tenure which is at the end of my final semester, and coronavirus has caged everyone at home now

Empiree:
You observe Him by observing 5 daily salat

Clown.

lanrexlan:


Science focuses its attention on only what observations can solve. However, Allah, by definition, is a Being who is outside the physical universe. Therefore, any direct observation of Him is impossible.

However, you may argue that indirect observation may support or negate God’s existence. This is not true. Any form of indirect observation could never negate God’s existence, because it is like saying an observed phenomenon can negate an unobserved phenomenon.

In addition, there are other sources of knowledge that science cannot justify, yet they are indispensable and fundamental sources of knowledge. This implies that science is not the only way to establish truths about the world and reality. The limitations of the scientific method demonstrate that science cannot answer all questions. Some of its main limitations include that:

It is limited to observation.
It is morally neutral.
It cannot delve into the personal.
It cannot answer why things happen.
It cannot address some metaphysical questions.
It cannot prove necessary truths.

So how can you observe something you can't see?

Even tho there are no other methods to answer the natural phenomena around us than using science or you have any other method you can suggest? But...

I'm not telling anybody to give empirical evidence using scientific methods nor show Allah directly to me, of course you can't do that since he's a spirit being, I'm saying show empirical evidence that atleast show that Allah is real things like supernatural events.

It's either I give things that will convince me or you demonstrate it if you have any, again I'm talking of empirical evidence not logical arguments.

Riduane:


Can physical or empirical process explain all phenomena?

Do you have any other process to explain all phenomena?

tintingz:


Clown.

Deliberately gave you that answer to allow you to vomit

tintingz:
Do you have any other process to explain all phenomena?

The first question should be, can all phenomenons be explained by physical and empirical evidence? Answer this and I'll answer your question.

Riduane:


The first question should be, can all phenomenons be explained by physical and empirical evidence? Answer this and I'll answer your question.

Yes if we understand it.

tintingz:


Yes if we understand it.

Straw answer

lanrexlan:

Philosophical naturalism is the view that the universe is like a closed system; there is nothing outside the universe that interferes with it, and there is no God or anything related to the supernatural. A key aspect of philosophical naturalism is that all phenomena can be explained via physical processes.

Philosophical naturalism forms the ‘lenses’ that are put on most atheists' eyes to understand the world. If you wore some yellow tinted glasses, what colour are you going to see? Yellow. Similarly, if you put on the lenses of philosophical naturalism, all you will see is a universe without God.

But is that really true? No. Why?

Philosophical Naturalism is incoherent, as it blindly believes that everything can be explained via physical processes, despite a number of recalcitrant facts; in other words, facts that resist a theory. Philosophical naturalism cannot adequately explain the hard problem of consciousness, the finitude and dependency of the universe, the fine-tuning of the laws and the order in the universe, the existence of objective morals and much more.

I see that you have been learning how to argue from professional Dawah muslims. This is a copy and paste of their works.


Philosophical naturalism is the only way humans can understand the world. The only way humans can determine truth is through observation and testing. You cannot see beyond your 5 senses.


You are saying that philosophical naturalism cannot explain the problem of consciousness and the fine tuning of the universe.

Well, let me correct you. You are forwarding a God-of-the-gaps argument. Just because science or naturalism cannot explain something, it does not mean it is not useful or effective. You religious people just ran God into anything that we dont understand.

Furthermore, everything we know about the universe is a result of philosophical naturalism. We observe, we study, we learn.


Lastly, if you follow the previous paragraph, you would know that I'm for methodological naturalism

Your problem is with metaphysical naturalism.

tintingz:


Even tho there are no other methods to answer the natural phenomena around us than using science or you have any other method you can suggest? But...

There are other methods to test natural phenomenas around us. Most of the things you believe as a so called atheist are based on "trusting the third party narrations". Have you seen the curvature of the earth? They are all based upon testimonies of others. Personal experience is another thing.

tintingz:


I'm not telling anybody to give empirical evidence using scientific methods nor show Allah directly to me, of course you can't do that since he's a spirit being, I'm saying show empirical evidence that atleast show that Allah is real things like supernatural events.

Allah is known by the signs that point to Him.

"Eyes do not see Him with a direct witnessing.
But hearts perceive Him through the realities of authentic belief. He is known through the evidence that points to Him. He is described by indications. He cannot be compared to human beings. And He cannot be perceived by the senses." (By Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib AS in Nahjul Balagha & al-Kafi)

There are tons of signs pointing to Allah around. Just open yours and see. Why are you turning away from them?

Surah Fussilat, Verse 53:
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?


Or you want a miracle? You want clouds to fall on you? Or a book should descend on you? Or angels should line up in front of you?

Even if you see them, you will still find ways to discredit them as you always do cos the sincerity is missing.

tintingz:


It's either I give things that will convince me or you demonstrate it if you have any, again I'm talking of empirical evidence not logical arguments.

So you don't do logical or philosophical arguments again?! Funny, Lol, it is now about signs . You are enough as an evidence pointing to the powers of God.

Surah Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 20-21:
وَفِي الْأَرْضِ آيَاتٌ لِّلْمُوقِنِينَ وَفِي أَنفُسِكُمْ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُو
And on the earth are signs for those who have Faith with certainty, And also in your ownselves. Will you not then see?

Can't you see Taiwo?

tintingz:


Yes if we understand it.

In essence, whatever you don't understand automatically does not exist?

Born2Freak:


Philosophical naturalism is the only way humans can understand the world. The only way humans can determine truth is through observation and testing. You cannot see beyond your 5 senses.

It is not the only way cos it has many limitations. Again, these are the limitation of science vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism:

It is limited to observation.
It cannot delve into the personal.
It cannot answer why things happen.
It cannot address some metaphysical questions.
It cannot prove necessary truths.

Can you explain how we can use observation and testing of physical processes to ascertain the truth in this story?

"Your aunty knocks on your door and presents you with a lovely home-baked chocolate cake. You accept the gift and place the cake on your kitchen table. Once she has gone, you open the box to have a slice. Before you indulge, you ask yourself a question: Why has she baked me this cake? Why?!"

Born2Freak:

You are saying that philosophical naturalism cannot explain the problem of consciousness and the fine tuning of the universe.

Well, let me correct you. You are forwarding a God-of-the-gaps argument. Just because science or naturalism cannot explain something, it does not mean it is not useful or effective. You religious people just ran God into anything that we dont understand.

I am not using god of gaps argument, I am simply telling you that science or naturalism is limited. It can't explain many things, and that's my point. I simply pointed out things science can't explain and will NEVER explain cos science deals with physical processes only. You can NEVER understand some things via science, that's the bitter truth.

I don't reject science (I love science and I am a science guy), and I cling tightly to my faith in Islam. We can accept both, you just need to know where to draw lines. Science is limited as it changes its stances on issues, divine book is eternal as science still confirms some things already mentioned in divine book. Divine book is ahead of science. That's my point.

Born2Freak:

Furthermore, everything we know about the universe is a result of philosophical naturalism. We observe, we study, we learn.

That's the beauty of science, it progress and changes with time. It changes its stances on issues when better observations and testings are provided

The discovery and use of the microscope and the electron microscope are good examples of scientific progress. Therefore, we can never be certain about our current understanding of the physical world, because it can change with improved observations.

Some of the "everything" we know about the world has been mentioned in the Qur'an even before the advent of advanced scientific methods that led to these things.

Born2Freak:

Lastly, if you follow the previous paragraph, you would know that I'm for methodological naturalism

Your problem is with metaphysical naturalism.

Yes, I have problem with metaphysical naturalism cos there is more to what meets the eyes and other 4 senses. As stated above, many things can't be explained by physical processes.

I don't have much problem with methodological naturalism because Islam accepts that the whole universe is made up of physical causes. But where we part way is that you believe that these physical processes/causes happened by themselves or randomly while I believe that these causes are pure manifestation of the Divine will (God).

Riduane:


Ah! Why you so forgetful?

I'm actually a department president and I only got elected last year. And we're not really getting any money. The way Association is run in University of Ilorin ehn, if Nigerian government is run like that, Nigeria would be better than it currently is
We're not getting monthly payment sha.. We're only getting some stipend at the end of the tenure which is at the end of my final semester, and coronavirus has caged everyone at home now

Sorry, I thought you be olorioko of the faculty ni. I have been dreaming niyen


Eeyah, corona don cause kasala oo. Ki Allah shanu, when you get your stipends, remember say na 50:50 oooo . Mi o fe story o

lanrexlan:
It is not the only way cos it has many limitations. Again, these are the limitation of science vis-a-vis philosophical naturalism:

It is limited to observation.
It cannot delve into the personal.
It cannot answer why things happen.
It cannot address some metaphysical questions.
It cannot prove necessary truths.

Can you explain how we can use observation and testing of physical processes to ascertain the truth in this story?

"Your aunty knocks on your door and presents you with a lovely home-baked chocolate cake. You accept the gift and place the cake on your kitchen table. Once she has gone, you open the box to have a slice. Before you indulge, you ask yourself a question: Why has she baked me this cake? Why?!"

I am not using god of gaps argument, I am simply telling you that science or naturalism is limited. It can't explain many things, and that's my point. I simply pointed out things science can't explain and will NEVER explain cos science deals with physical processes only. You can NEVER understand some things via science, that's the bitter truth.

I don't reject science (I love science and I am a science guy), and I cling tightly to my faith in Islam. We can accept both, you just need to know where to draw lines. Science is limited as it changes its stances on issues, divine book is eternal as science still confirms some things already mentioned in divine book. Divine book is ahead of science. That's my point.

That's the beauty of science, it progress and changes with time. It changes its stances on issues when better observations and testings are provided

The discovery and use of the microscope and the electron microscope are good examples of scientific progress. Therefore, we can never be certain about our current understanding of the physical world, because it can change with improved observations.

Some of the "everything" we know about the world has been mentioned in the Qur'an even before the advent of advanced scientific methods that led to these things.



Yes, I have problem with metaphysical naturalism cos there is more to what meets the eyes and other 4 senses. As stated above, many things can't be explained by physical processes.

I don't have much problem with methodological naturalism because Islam accepts that the whole universe is made up of physical causes. But where we part way is that you believe that these physical processes/causes happened by themselves or randomly while I believe that these causes are pure manifestation of the Divine will (God).

This is a simple point. Please, which truth have you ever reached through non-scientific or physical means?

Born2Freak:




This is a simple point. Please, which truth have you ever reached through non-scientific or physical means?

The reality of the past, consciousness, and more. Can science or your physical processes explain any of the above?

lanrexlan:
The reality of the past, consciousness, and more. Can science or your physical processes explain any of the above?

Arrant nonsense.


What the hp are you talking about? Is it not with archeology and carbon dating we use to uncover past histories?

Consciousness has been studied by scientists and we have been making progress
Onit.


Does your religion reveal any useful truth? No. It is inferior to science. A society without Islam can survive
A society without science and naturalism cannot survive

Riduane:


In essence, whatever you don't understand automatically does not exist?

No, if we don't understand it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we shouldn't jump into conclusion it's supernatural or fill the gap with God.

It doesn't mean we can't understand it in the future.

In a nutshell we should avoid fallacies.

lanrexlan:
There are other methods to test natural phenomenas around us. Most of the things you believe as a so called atheist are based on "trusting the third party narrations". Have you seen the curvature of the earth? They are all based upon testimonies of others. Personal experience is another thing.

What other methods do you suggest?

Science deal with things that can be observed, experiments. It's not about trust, it's about things that can be tested objectively by anybody. Even if we destroy all scientific research today and redo the research we will still get same results of the previous research.

And yes, there are empirical evidence of the earth curvature.

Allah is known by the signs that point to Him.

"Eyes do not see Him with a direct witnessing.
But hearts perceive Him through the realities of authentic belief. He is known through the evidence that points to Him. He is described by indications. He cannot be compared to human beings. And He cannot be perceived by the senses." (By Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib AS in Nahjul Balagha & al-Kafi)

There are tons of signs pointing to Allah around. Just open yours and see. Why are you turning away from them?

Surah Fussilat, Verse 53:
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?

Lol, this is just confirming bias. Every Religion point signs to their Gods to prove it existence. This is more like a post hoc fallacy, "Because this, therefore God".

You can't possibly with empirical evidence connect a phenomena to Allah, you can't, you only use your confirmation bias to do so.

Or you want a miracle? You want clouds to fall on you? Or a book should descend on you? Or angels should line up in front of you?

The only empirical evidence to support your God existence is doing miracles in his name.

E.g split the moon by mentioning Allah's name, if everyone can do this then this shows an evidence Allah is somewhere answering.

Even if you see them, you will still find ways to discredit them as you always do cos the sincerity is missing.

Not true. I don't know why most Muslims use his line everytime like they know my mind already.

If you can empirical prove Allah today I'm ready to revert back to Islam. This is something I will never break. One of the reasons I stop believing in Allah is no evidence support his existence.

So you don't do logical or philosophical arguments again?! Funny, Lol, it is now about signs . You are enough as an evidence pointing to the powers of God.

Surah Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 20-21:
وَفِي الْأَرْضِ آيَاتٌ لِّلْمُوقِنِينَ وَفِي أَنفُسِكُمْ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُو
And on the earth are signs for those who have Faith with certainty, And also in your ownselves. Will you not then see?

Can't you see Taiwo?

I realize that using logic as argument for your God is more like an idea than being real. Logic is an idea I hope you know that.

Even with logic, there are flaws in argument for Allah.

Born2Freak:





Arrant nonsense.


What the hp are you talking about? Is it not with archeology and carbon dating we use to uncover past histories?

Consciousness has been studied by scientists and we have been making progress
Onit.


Does your religion reveal any useful truth? No. It is inferior to science. A society without Islam can survive
A society without science and naturalism cannot survive

Very true.

I can remember a debate of Sean Carroll destroying Williams L. Craig in naturalism being better than religion/theism.

With naturalism we can arrive at morality.

With naturalism we can advance.

With naturalism we can explain the phenomena in the universe.

Even Religion depends on naturalism. They have no good explanation for the universe than their mythology and superstitions.

Now imagine we have only religion and no science dominance like In the past.

We would actually believe COVID-19 is a wrath from the Gods. Spanish Flu is history today because of vaccines not some sacrifice to some Gods to appease them.

lanrexlan:
Sorry, I thought you be olorioko of the faculty ni. I have been dreaming niyen
Eeyah, corona don cause kasala oo. Ki Allah shanu, when you get your stipends, remember say na 50:50 oooo . Mi o fe story o

Even Buhari don't share 50:50 with Tinubu