 Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight, we're going to be debating is Islam true? And to start us out, we have Hussein on the floor. So six minutes, Hussein and the floor is all yours. Hello. Can you guys see me? We sure can. Oh, okay. For some reason, it went away. So sorry. Anyways, hi, everyone. So first, I would like to say thank you for having us. Thanks for Mark and Dusty being out here and doing the 2v2. And thanks for hosting us. So I'd like to start off by saying a shouldn't be controversial statement, I think, but Islam is the only true religion still standing today that believes in true monotheism with one creator, God, with a people who submit their will to God and praises him and respects creation. Judaism, for example, reduces God to likens God to humanity. Christianity literally reduces God to a man, a Safar Allah. And Hinduism and other pagan religions, religions create weak gods that truly do not represent God either, a supreme being that created the world. This is often a common argument made by atheists. However, when people truly research into religion, they should see that only Islam answers these questions and represents God and all the prophet's messages throughout humanity. It's easy to see, however, that most of the world has, in a way, trended towards atheism. And it would make sense because when you're starting with these defunct positions, such as like Zeus, a monkey God, a God that needs to kill himself to forgive his own creation, you are basically reducing God to human-like qualities. However, I would like to state that, I think, given the cumulantive arguments made in favor of God being true, as well as it being God being a personal God, I would say in our human experiences, I would say atheism is just as irrational as believing in Zeus, a monkey God, or a God that needs to kill himself. So much of the world pulled today on why they became atheists actually responded with the problem of evil. And this is, to me, at least not a rational argument, but an emotional one. Then there's the other camp of atheism, which we'd be playing skeptic and diminishing our faculty faculties in order to run away from the concept of God. The Quran states that while human beings worship themselves and their own desires, and their perceived ego and intellect. So it says, have you seen a prophet, the one who has taken their own desires as their God? Will you have then be a keeper over them? It's disgusting atheists want to impossibly reject God to follow their own whims and desires, instead of bettering themselves by reflecting on the world and humanity's position within it, which is talked about repeatedly within the Quran. The Quran and Islam has also spawned the Kalam argument. And then were they created by nothing or were they themselves the creators or did they create the heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain. And that's in Surah Al-Thorah 53-34. Islam has spawned the contingency argument. It's mentioned within the Quran and Prophet peace be upon him. It advised us that one of God's name is Al-Wajib Al-Wujud, which is who Christian theologians later took and modified. God has also asked atheists to produce a book like it, and yet none of them have and never will. God also goes on to state, oh people, the example is presented. So listen to it. Indeed, those who evoke besides a law will never create much of as a fly, even if they gather together for that purpose. Atheists often bring up ideas that while the argument of who created God with this is failing to understand when we what we talk about when we talk about a necessary being, its argument is absurd and they're failing to understand the point. Basically, a material world had a beginning and nothing begets nothing. So therefore, something outside of this universe must have created the universe, i.e. God, and he must be timeless and eternal. Atheists then tune to the problem of evil, again a largely emotional argument, which now atheists have rejected themselves as an omnipotent God could have a good reason for allowing bad things to happen and we only see a small fraction of the puzzle. So how can we judge the actions of what God allows? This has also been answered by as well through Ibn Tamir, as well as other Christian and Islamic theologians who have written about it when they talk about free will. And this is also in a way referenced within the Qur'an. So it says, Remember when your Lord said to the angels, I'm going to place a successive human authority on earth. Will you, the angels asked, will you place someone who will spread corruption there and shed blood while we glorify your praises and proclaim your holiness? Allah responded, I know that which you do not know. And this humans have the capacity for both and they are taking a negative view. When speaking about morality, it's quite ironic because many atheists are more relativists, but then have objections with Islam. This has been articulated by C.L. Lewis on this, which is a man does not come call something crooked unless he has an idea of a straight line. It's a great quote. So what is objectively good and what is objectively evil? What is justice and injustice? If an atheist rejects God's existence, then objective morality, good and evil is also being rejected. Thus all occurrences and actions and preferences are preferences and not matters of fact. So a moral relativist cannot claim then that there is objective, good and evil. And human beings, however, perceive morality and that human beings have moral moral actions and that we have free choice. Okay, we'll go over more stuff later. All right. Well, thank you so much Hussein for your introductory statement. Want to let everybody know if you don't know, welcome to modern day debate. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. We do hope you feel welcome here. Hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, share this out. We appreciate it. And we have an exciting announcement we're going to make shortly, but for now, six minutes on the floor over to you, Muslim Apologist. Okay, thank you for that introduction and greetings everyone. And thank you for allowing me to be on this platform. So to continue from what my partner, Brother Hussein just said just now, I will posit that there are three things which one could consider on why Islam is true. To break it down, I will talk about its philosophical coherence, its historical contributions, as well as the ethical framework that Islam presents. So going into the philosophical coherence of monotheism at the heart of Islamic philosophy is the concept of Tawhid, which is the oneness of God. And if you were to look at deeply into the principles of Tawhid, you will find that it aligns well with Occam's razor, which is a philosophical principle that suggests simpler explanations are more likely to be correct. By proposing an uncaused cause at the heart of existence, Islamic theology offers a more streamlined coherent framework that resonates with the principles of rational inquiry and logical simplicity and it avoids unnecessary complexities that can accompany other theological systems which involve multiple gods or creators. Furthermore, if we look into Tawhid, we will find that it is consistent with modern cosmological theories such as the Big Bang, which posits a singular origin of the universe. And this congruence between Islamic theology and contemporary scientific understanding reinforces the philosophical rationality of monotheism which is represented in Islam as Tawhid. When we contrast this with artistic perspectives which often reject divine causations in favor of random chance or spontaneous natural processes, Tawhid offers a more purposeful and intentional explanation for the universe. Now, Islam also addresses the existential questions which propose a purposeful creation such as why is there something rather than nothing. While atheism focuses on empirical evidence and often remains neutral or skeptical about existential meanings, Islamic monotheism integrates empirical understanding with philosophical coherence and spiritual significance and offers a comprehensive view that spans both the metaphysical and empirical. Now I will move to the contributions of Islamic civilization. Now we know that the contributions of Islamic civilization to global knowledge, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age, it marks a significant transition from philosophical underpinnings to empirical environments. In contrast to atheistic contributions that may lack a unified spiritual or religious framework, the achievements of the Islamic Golden Age was deeply intertwined with the philosophical and religious context of Islam which encouraged the pursuit of knowledge as a form of worship. Moreover, the Islamic emphasis on the preservation and translation of ancient texts was introsmental in facilitating a vast exchange of knowledge across cultures. This scholarly activity not only preserved essential philosophical and scientific works but also expanded upon them. Additionally, Islamic contributions were not solely about knowledge preservation but also about innovation and this contrasts with some modern atheistic approaches where the pursuit of knowledge can sometimes conflict with or disregard ethical considerations. And with regards to my final point, ethical and moral framework of Islam, the ethical teachings of Islam is deeply rooted in divine guidance and it offers a comprehensive and pragmatic enhancement to the societal well-being and is grounded in universal moral principles, for example, such as the practice of zakat. It exemplifies Islam's structured approach to social welfare as it requires Muslims to contribute financially to those in need. The concept of umma in Islam strengthens community cohesion by fostering a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility among Muslims. Islamic jurisprudence also focuses on fairness and justice and it aligns with principles found in many modern human rights discourses but it uniquely integrates those into daily religious practice and governance and this ensures a societal fabric that is consistently monitored and adjusted according to ethical laws. Ethicism, however, lacks a centralized ethical doctrine which leaves interpretations of justice and fairness up to secular law and personal morality which widely vary and lack the uniformity provided by the Islamic legal framework. Islam also explicitly addresses the preservation of the family unit and social cohesiveness, viewing them as foundations for a moral society and with regards to economic practices, Islamic economics promotes a model of fairness through prohibitions on usury and encouragement of reselling. Ethistic perspectives, however, do not operate under divine economic laws and might not inherently object to usury or prioritize ethical considerations in economic practices. Now in conclusion, through its philosophical coherence, its indignable contributions to global knowledge and its robust ethical framework, Islam certainly presents itself not just as a belief system but a profound and enduring framework. Islam clearly invites not just the believers but everyone including atheists to reflect on the rational and ethical merits of the region. Thank you. All right. And just before you get that share up there, Mark, just one second there, I want to thank the Muslim apologist for your introductory statement. I also have an announcement to make which is really exciting. So a modern day debate is going to be collaborating with Mines. In 15 days they're doing a debate panel for an event called Mines Fest in Austin, Texas. It's going to be Saturday, April 27th. We're going to be there personally not myself, but James is going to be there to assist recording the panels and we're going to be streaming the event. So I am going to put a link in the description and you can use the promo code to get tickets for this event. Use the code MDD for 20% off of whatever ticket type you choose. There are going to be some controversial debates happening over on the 27th. Destiny's going to be there, Loren Chen, Jimmy Dorr and all kinds of other people. So check out the event. I'm going to put the description in there. Now, Mark, if you're ready, we're going to kick it over to the other side. Six minutes on the floor and thank you for being here. Oh, you're on mute, Mark. I'm going to do that at least once. Thank you. So thank you very much. My pleasure to take the negative on the proposition is Islam true. I want to thank Ryan and modern day debate. And of course my interlocutors for the opportunity to present the argument against Islam. First off, we've got to ask what are the claims being made to say what is true and what is not true? What do we have to evaluate here? So first, I'm just going to go quickly through the six major beliefs of Islam. These comprise the rundown of the basic claims that they make. They're belief in the oneness of God, belief in the angels of God, belief in the books of God, belief in the prophets or the messengers of God, belief in the day of judgment, belief in the divine decree. The Islamic religion makes these wildly extravagant claims that they present as true or there is no strong evidence to back up any of these claims. Now it must be understood by rational people that a claim or assertion is not a form of evidence. So while the Quran Torah or Bible may be evidence that people wrote down these claims, the book is just the transmission for the claim itself. The book is no more evidence for the claim as someone writing a book about seeing a ghost is evidence for that ghost. So first off, what has to be demonstrated? All of these things must be demonstrated for the claim of the Islamic religion to be true, although being very substantial on claims that evidence to back these things up are scant and there are major problems which I will get into. People that do not follow the religion of, people that who do follow the religion of Islam, sorry, wish us to believe that is true without providing any reason to think that it is true. A claim of this magnitude and exceptional claims need exceptional evidence is almost entirely anecdotal, unverifiable or un-falsifiable. The problem with un-falsifiable claims is that a claim which cannot be investigated isn't even worth considering as true and I'll use an example of this Sagan's Dragon. Karl Popper, who's one of the founding people to find out but behind our modern understanding of scientific methods talks about the importance of being able to falsify things. If I claim that something exists like a fairy on my desk that vanishes anytime that it's looked at, I restrict you from finding out in any way whether it is false and that idea is not even worth considering as true until I get something to show you. Otherwise, to be intellectually consistent you'd have to accept any claim as true that cannot be investigated which could be infinite claims about infinite gods, demons, leprechauns and who knows what else. Now people may accept things as true with little evidence like if I claim to have a pen on my desk instead of a fairy, the evidence that people generally have pens on desk may be enough for a very small claim like that. However, the strength of the evidence should be in proportion to the significance of the claim and Islam is making some of the most significant claims in human history. The evidence should be the strongest in human history as well but it's not. Now I realize just a question. Do you mean to be sharing right now because you're not? I do mean to be sharing. Oh, I did share my screen. It's not up. Oh, well, you know, that's that's okay. That's all right. I yeah, okay. It's okay. Let's go. Let's pop it up. Yeah, we'll push on. Now I realize I realize that I'm putting the burden of proof on the affirmative here where probably it should be. But to be fair, I'll outline some problems that I'll submit of evidence and arguments against Islam for the discussion. I'm happy to discuss them in the dialogue. So we're talking about logical problems, the problem of evil. So why do bad things happen to good people? And we can certainly discuss that the omnipotence paradox if allies all powerful, there's paradoxes that arise with that like can he create a bulgery, can't lift, can he create a burger, he can't eat. There's problems of omniscience and free will if God knows always what's going to happen. How do we have any free will if he already knows the outcome? There's lacks of reasonable evidence as I went through the unforeseeable proposition, divine hiddenness and absence basically not being able to find this God. And there's also problem with confirmation bias that apologetics is necessarily fitting the evidence to your previous conclusion, not following the evidence to where it leads. There's doubts about the holy text is errors in the Quran like things like the heart is the source of reason and things like the moon splitting in half. There's mythology in the Quran, you know, Muhammad flying on a winged steed. There's Abu Talib, the uncle of Muhammad who was very close to him and loved him died without converting. Now it should have been the easiest thing in the world to display that he was actually the prophet of God, but apparently he could not do so. So there's all this evidence against Islam and not much evidence for it. So I'll be look forward to seeing that evidence tonight. So thank you very much for listening and I'll send it back to Ryan to move us onwards. Thank you. All right. Excellent. Well, thank you so much, Mark. And we'll just end the screen share there. Get back to our main screen. Thank you so much. And we're going to hand the floor over to you, Dusty. You have six minutes on the floor. It's all yours. Okay. Hopefully you guys can hear me because my headphones died. So anyways, so first off, thanks to Modern Day Debate for having me on tonight. Thank you to Mark for being my teammate and thank you to our opponents for stepping up this evening to justify their beliefs. Okay, so the topic of tonight's debate is Islam True. The short answer is no, of course not. Now forgive me, I understand the air of pretentiousness that surrounds that statement given my choice of words, but a large part of me feels that the fact that we're here debating it tonight shows that it's not true. So if I could ask for everyone's patience, I'll do my best to lay out the argument as clearly as I can. I was recently doom scrolling through YouTube shorts, as I'm sure many of you can relate, and I came across a video posted by Modern Day Debate of T-Jump, who I'm sure you're all familiar with. Shout out to the chair. But in the middle of this discussion he's in, he says, I don't care about your holy book, show me the God exists, and then we can talk about what the book says. This clip initially made me chuckle, but upon further reflection, I realized this is the core central argument that all other reflections are contingent upon. So this is the order of claims as they're being made. Number one, there's an all-knowing all-good God. Number two, this God has inspired the holy book to guide man. Number three, my interpretation of this holy book is the correct interpretation. And then number four, I concluded this holy book provides not only the most accurate view of reality, but it serves as the best framework for human happiness and well-being. So as logic follows, we don't even need to address two or three or four without claim one being substantiated first. This is because the question of Islam is, it's all encompassing. I mean, is it true historically? Is it true scientifically? Is it true morally? I'm prepared to address all these talking points, as I'm sure everyone else is. But we have to ask ourselves, how on earth can anyone actually go about proving whether or not a particular belief system is true? Carl Jung wrote in his book of psychology and religion that religion is the Latin word denotes is a careful and scrupulous observation of what Rudolph Otto aptly termed the numinosum. That is a dynamic existence or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On the contrary, it seizes and controls the human subject, which is always rather its victim than its creator. The numinosum is an involuntary condition or whatever the cause might be. He also goes on to write that the numinosum is either a quality of a visible object or the influence of an invisible presence. And the invisible presence, that's the important part there, causing a particular alteration of consciousness. This is at least a general rule. So in other words, the numinosum is the exact moment that the divine interacts with our reality in such a way that it alters or affects it. So whether it's the dictation of the angel Gabriel, the deciphering of the golden tablets as instructed by the angel Moroni, or being handed down the direct commandments of God on pieces of stone, they all hold the same weight of truth claim as far as anyone should be concerned. Now sometimes this belief of this numinosum, as Jung points out, is perpetuated over time, it gains followers, and it becomes a religio. But it should be pointed out here that not every claim of numinosum develops into a religion. Indeed, people claim to have these miraculous moments on a daily basis. In fact, mankind throughout the ages has had countless moments of numinosum that we eventually disregard as pigments of man's imagination. Now to my knowledge, neither the God claim or the supernatural has ever been demonstrated to be true. So it is this moment of numinosum that logic follows our opponents must address if they're given a chance tonight to prove the case. And this is why my initial answer to the question of, is Islam true? I responded with no, of course not. This is because if an actual moment of numinosum were to take place, and it be the intentions of this God that this moment was to correct the pathway, so to speak, there'd be no debate about it. I would argue that if Islam were true, there would be no such thing as apologists, there would be no such thing as apostates, there'd be no such thing as atheists. In other words, if God really did interact with our reality, we would all know about it and there'd be no discussion as to whether or not it actually happened. Again, I'm a skeptic here, but I love thought experiments, and if the theists can claim to know the mind of God, then so can I. If I'm an all-knowing, all-good creator of mankind, and somehow I've created them wrong, which I'm not even sure how that would happen, and their mindset of me and what it means to be humans needs to be adjusted, and I need to commit this act of numinosum to send this message, why would I send it to a small group of people in the desert who were illiquid to convince the minds of all humanity? This does not make sense of a God, and it shouldn't make sense of a God. And that's because this moment of numinosum must be void of human error and interpretation. It must rise to the standard of God since man is fallible. It must not need human beings to reveal the truth at the moment or to spread the knowledge of it. It must stand on its own if we are truly to believe it's from God. And this is because I see in a lot of debates between atheists and theists, theists will often go, what would you accept as your standard of evidence? And that's really a difficult question to ask, especially as a skeptic. Our only true response is I don't know, but God would know. And that's really what it all boils down to. That's the core of it, is that if God really wanted mankind to know something about him, there'd be no need for humans to interpret that. There'd be no need for humans to spread that information. The moment of numinosum would be self-aware or self-apparent, basically. And so I will, I guess, concede the rest of my 30 seconds or so to the Q&A. All right. Let us carry into our open discussion panel. But before we do that, I want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat that all of our debates are uploaded to podcast form within 24 hours. So maybe more of a call out to the people listening on podcast. If you're wondering why you're not catching these live, it's because they're happening over on our YouTube channel, Modern Day Debate. So come check us out and subscribe to our YouTube channel. And once again, just remind everybody 20% off the tickets when you use your promo code MDD for the upcoming event. That's going to be Austin, Texas, Saturday, April 27th. We're collaborating with Mimes. Destiny's going to be there debating Lauren Chen, Jimmy Dore, and other people as well. James is going to be personally helping out at the events. So you might run it into him as well. It's going to be exciting and really exciting that this happened the way it did. So we're only about two weeks away from this event. So if you're going to be in the area, definitely grab your tickets up and look forward to seeing that event here on Modern Day Debate as well. And let's kick it into open discussion. Hussein Muslim Apologist, I like to put it back to the other side to let you respond to some of what you just heard and then let's dig in. Yeah, so I had some questions. Kind of my argument I'm trying to go through is basically to me, right? I think a lot of the conclusions of the atheist world view, if you will. And I know obviously some atheists will have a problem with me saying this. It seems to contradict reality as we perceive it. So for example, when I say Mark in our prior debates has perceived that Islam has a lot of immoral prescriptions. That means he perceives moral choice and moral actions, right? And then we've also talked about well, okay, you perceive that you have free will and free choice. So there's another thing, right? And then when you go into the idea of evolution and everything is basically just a causal chain from the first moving, then you don't actually have free will. But everyday human beings perceive all these things that atheists for some reason are like categorically rejecting. It doesn't seem to me conducive that you're living in reality per se. Does that make sense? I understand that you guys may disagree with those presumptions. But does that make sense, I guess? And then I think... No, not really. I'll go through all of those things because it covered a lot of topics under there, some of which have very broad scope. But sort of the atheist, there is no atheist world view and atheist is a position on one proposition. It's not a worldview. So all that is required to be an atheist is just that you do not believe that there is any God. That's it. That's all. So sort of saying this atheist world view, adding a whole load of extras onto that. So sort of an atheist may be a moral nihilist. I'm not believing morals at all. An atheist may be a moral objectivist and say that morals come from a standard of nature. I don't personally think that. But you can't leverage that against all atheists because that's not what all atheists think. So this is kind of irrelevant. And evolution, I'm not even sure why you're going into evolution. You're sort of calling it a causal problems and there is no problems. What is interesting, though, is your partner sort of said that under Occam's razor, one God is the simplest explanation. But actually, that's not true. Under Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is zero gods and just natural processes. Because the natural processes exist anyway. We know they exist. We agree they exist. You're adding a God to it, which means that under Occam's, zero gods is simpler than one. Yeah. I mean, we talked about, you talked about other religions and the opening argument. You talked about atheism quite a bit. And you mentioned atheism was irrational. You mentioned the problem of evil. You quoted from the Quran about atheism and mentioned the column and the contingency argument. You mentioned how God asks atheists to create a book. But none of this is relevant to the debate topic of Islam True. None of these are proposed evidence to posit the claim. And the same with your partner, too. Talking philosophy, the one of us of God, again, as Mark pointed out with Occam's razor, contributions of Islam in the Golden Age, the moral well-being, contributions. I'm more than happy to talk about whether or not Islam is actually moral in its beliefs. But yeah, none of this is evidence for the truth claim of Islam. When I bring up, for example, like Kalam in the necessary being, I'm saying these things. So these things are logical proofs for God. So when then, if you take the next jump, so you believe in those assumptions or the argument and the argument is sound. So this is proof of God. So what's the next step? Did God send messengers? And then yes. So we've had history of that. And many people have philosophized about God. And then so you go to the next step, well, which religions would be true? And then that's why I was bringing up other religions. I did also want to remark real quickly that so the Abu Talib part is actually quite funny because there's a, I believe, like a Hadith where Muhammad predicted he would never convert. And so he could have just disproved Islam by converting. And yet he never did. So it's a vote. Why? Well, go ahead, Mark. Sorry. Well, let's stick to, you know, you sort of brought up the column, then went very quickly onto this, this uncle kind of thing. And yeah, just to the uncle, I'll say, if I was a, you know, prophet scamming people, I would probably say, Hey, my very close uncle won't believe it. There's a prophecy. Yeah. If I know that I'm not saying something that is true, that would be a prophecy. No, it would just be somebody with a general expectation that the person that knows it's fake won't believe that it's fake. But the column, what is the conclusion of the column? So things that come into existence need a creator, basically. So there must be a creator of the universe. No, that is not the conclusion of the drum. Everything that everything that exists has to have a cause and basically the universe, everything that begins to exist had to have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That's it. Now, I've got problems with the soundness of that because under certain models that we have in science, the universe may not have begun to exist. It may have been in an atemporal state. You mentioned that sort of stuff about timeless and eternal. And I don't like to use eternal because it sort of mentions things. But if you're talking about before there was time, you're already in the realms of incoherence. So it's kind of that there are models that show that at the very, very early part, it may have been atemporal. There was no time. And if there is no time, then it may not have had a beginning and the universe is atemporal at that point. But we don't know for sure. But you're sort of saying, hey, the universe had a beginning. And you need to demonstrate that if you're going to make that claim as part of your syllogism. But even if you do, the column does not get you to, there was a creator. The column gets you to the universe had a cause. That's the conclusion. So that's why I was saying like when you factor in, for example, like the column with the contingency argument, and then you factor in with modern science, such as like the Big Bang. So I did want to mention as well. And then maybe the Muslim apologist can say something since he hasn't got to talk yet. You guys are saying that just by the very nature of Dusty was saying this, not you Mark, by the very fact that we're arguing stuff with a sort of in a about religion, for example, then it would show by its very nature that it's not true. I would actually like categorically disagree with that because I don't think you guys would would say, okay, well, people argue about the earth being flat. Therefore, you know, round earth theory is not true, for example, because people are contesting that. So people and human human beings are always going to come to different conclusions when viewing evidence. It does actually go into like hyperscepticism where like, some people and I was going to ask you about this and we can go over it later. But like, do you even trust your perception? Like, do you trust your senses? Like how hyper like how skeptical are you guys willing to go for example? But yeah, I'll allow the Muslim apologists to talk. Yeah, thank you. So basically, the reason why I mentioned the contributions of the Islamic Golden Age is because Islam is not just about the spiritual well-being of the community or the individuals also about the world as well. So Islam in our belief as a Muslim, it encompasses everything. It is a way of life. So it is all interconnected. And I wouldn't agree to the suggestion that anything that I mentioned about contributions of the Islamic civilization has no relation to the topic of our discussion today. So everything in Islam, whatever we do in Islam, how we eat, how we drink, how we talk, how we behave, how we react or we interact with community. It is all divinely ordained. It is all interconnected. So to disprove or to this, how would I put it? To deny that Islam had anything to do with this moral imperative would actually disprove Islam's truthfulness. So I would say it is all interconnected and yeah. And I believe there was one of you who mentioned about the problem of evil. So from the position of Islam, there is no problem in the problem of evil because as Muslims, we believe that every tribulation, every problems that we face, problems that we face, every difficulty in this life is just a test. The life that we live in this world is temporal. The hereafter is eternal. So whatever we do here is all divine, divinely ordained. It is all determined by God, whatever difficulty that we face, it is all a test, it is a tribulation. So that in the hereafter, we will get our just reward and our just retribution for our patients and perseverance. So in Islam, there is no concept of problem of evil as per other religions. Yeah. So going back to what you had stated before, the reason why I said, the reason why we're debating it or I'm sorry, the idea or the fact that we're debating it shows that it's not true is only whenever Islam is compared to all other belief systems, you know, there's something very peculiar about there being eight billion people on the planet. And if you were to ask, you know, and many of these people don't know what it means, the first thing what it means to govern or lead or ensure human rights to all, you know, we can't even get fresh, clean drinking water to everybody on the planet. And it's not for lack of resources either. But the main issue that I have is that if you were to ask any one of these eight billion people, they would not only tell you the name of God, which differs all over the planet, but they'll claim to know his intentions and they'll claim to know his intentions better than another human. Like this is this is the problem is that, you know, we have one stars or one stars, one of 300 or one of 100 billion in the Milky Way and the Milky Way is one of possibly 200 billion galaxies. So to claim to know the mind of a grand architect carries a lot of weight, guys, like the most weight that anyone could claim to carry with a single phrase. And so that was my contention is that every belief that we've ever had about God has been shown to be wrong because there's no evidence proposed. There's no, there's nothing testable, verifiable, repeatable. And without that, you have to take the truth claims of Islam and put it right up on the shelf with the truth claims of Zoroastrianism with Egyptians, like polytheistic, monotheistic, doesn't matter. If you cannot provide the evidence for the God claim, everything else is irrelevant. So that's that's all I was getting at with that. Yeah. So yeah. And I just I just quickly want to just add on to that and sort of push back against the hype to just quickly hearsay them. So just the highest hyper skepticism, like disbelief in a God, like if you were giving us the evidence that the Round Earth provides, like photographs and and surveys and scientists going out there and finding the God and being able to test and falsify it, if you were giving us that, that would be really good evidence. So this analogy of the hyper skepticism for God is like flat earth is completely ridiculous because for Round Earth, we're providing a ton of evidence for it, mountains of evidence for it. You're not providing us anything besides a book, which is a claim and then a whole bunch of people saying the same thing. And I might add, you know, most people in the world don't believe the claim. So you're sort of claiming that the majority of the world is hyper skeptical. And that just isn't true. Yeah. So my point was, so you guys have both brought it up. So I guess two things. So the vast majority of the world is religious or at least spiritual, even atheists themselves when pulled have spiritual beliefs. So it clearly is something more than just the material physical world. And then most people and almost all societies when studied human beings, they've all had a concept of a creator God. So these things are innate. And then I would reject the idea that you only need science to prove things. There's a plenty of things that rationally and intuitively make sense, such as like the law of non-contradiction and math, a lot of philosophical concepts, they are unfalsifiable scientifically, but we believe them because they make sense. So and again, we're not not providing evidence. I've said the contingency argument is a really great argument for the belief in God. So that is something that I can hold on to and believe in and show that therefore this rationally makes sense and reasonably makes sense. And then therefore, what is the next step is, okay, is it a deist God? Is it Islamic God? Is it a Christian God? Is it a Jewish God? I mean, that's the work that people have to do. I mean, the fact that many people are just basically being NPCs and don't want to think about these things, I mean, that doesn't disprove the concept of God. I don't think anybody is a non-player character, that sort of offensive to sort of say, hey, people aren't real people. It's kind of just, you know, very dismissive and it's, I think it's beneath you, Hussain. But the whole idea that sort of an argument is evidence is not true. So an argument is a logical support of the claim. So when you have the validity of the argument, it's a logical support of the claim. You need the soundness as well, which is the evidence to back that up. You can't just say, hey, well, I have an argument. I'm going to present that argument. It is evidence. No, it's not. And that is the new monosim. That's what young was talking about. It is the exact moment that Gabriel dictates the Quran to Muhammad. That's the moment you have to defend. And I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that's an un-falsifiable argument to make. So it's not worth even considering. And you were talking about how everybody, more people in the world are religious than not. Yes. And we know this. I mean, human beings have been on the planet, homo sapiens. Archaic homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. Modern homo sapiens have been around for about 160,000 years. And some of the earliest forms of homo sapiens settlement, human settlement, is some of the earliest forms of spiritual beliefs. I mean, when they come across the settlement of bones, they can usually tell it's human because of ritualistic burials. So this belief of God has been around for a very long time and no one's been able to provide evidence for it. So what we're left with is either God is divine hiddenness, or this is a figment of mankind's imagination. This is a by-product of us eliminating certain selection pressures and getting to a point where, I can't remember who's actually, I think it was Young that said it best. He said, you know, go ahead and continue. But yeah, I was going to say, I was just going to finish with Young said it best and that religion was created at a time where mankind had an overabundance of creativity, but was void of understanding of the chemical world around them. And I think once you step out of the dogmatic belief system and look at belief as a whole, this becomes abundantly clear. Yeah, can I answer to that? Oh, yes, of course. Yeah, sure. So you mentioned about, I'm not sure that the term that you use, noninism, I don't know how you pronounce it. But anyway, in Islam, there is this concept called the fitrah, the innate knowledge, the innate belief of God or something divine or something to cling to the of a higher power. So in Islam, we believe that the fitrah, the natural inclination to worship God is inherent in all human beings. So that is why you see many religions in the world. You see the astralism, you see idol worship, you see Buddhism, etc. These are all with even it is also in a way worshipping something of a higher power, which is materialism in a way. So all humans have a religion, regardless whether you want to deny a God's existence or otherwise, there is an innate sense of wanting to turn to a certain ideology of philosophy. So this is what in Islam we call as fitrah. Now, the natural inclination of a human being in Islam would be to turn to the one through God. So this is, like I said inherent. And how we know that God exists, we see in Islam in the Quran, especially mentions that the existence of creation itself is evidence that God exists. The world cannot come and appear from nothing. There has to be a creator. So this of course relates to my partner's arguments about kalam and the beginnings of the universe, etc, which I would not get into. But in Islam, we don't have this problem of why or this question. We already have the answer to the question why humans need to worship God or why humans need to turn to a God. So we already have the answers to this. Okay. So the innate belief in a God, I think that humans and it's sort of been demonstrated that humans have an innate, I like they sort of try to fill any unknown with an explanation that the problem is that that doesn't make the explanation true. There has been since the dawn of time, since Hussain mentioned and, you know, sort of people believe in God's their people have believed in magic too, since the dawn of time. And that belief, some people still believe that today, because we don't like not having explanations. When we hear a noise in our house, we want to assign it to something instead of going, well, I don't know what it is. But that doesn't mean it to God. You've claimed now, and you're kind of stacking claim, Muslim apologists, you're stacking these claims up that the natural inclination is to worship the one true God. How can you show that? How can you demonstrate that is actually the case. And then you've gone on to say, well, atheists worship materialism, which isn't true either. Some may do, some may not, because as I said, it's not a worldview. It's simply a position on one proposition. Is there a God? And atheists say, no, I do not believe there's a God. The world appearing from nothing. I don't know where you got that from. If you're referring to a universe from nothing, which is the title of Lawrence Krauss books, he doesn't think that the universe came from philosophical nothingness. He thinks that it came from a quantum field devoid of matter and energy, which would be nothing in physics speak, but it's not technically nothing philosophically speaking. And you're sitting there going, well, we have an answer for those things. The problem is that everybody in a religion claims to have an answer for those things. And we want you to demonstrate that that answer is in fact true. It is not enough to say, hey, I can explain the noise in my house by a ghost. You have to demonstrate that that is actually true and not the doorbanging or some kind of noise through the pipes or something like that. You can't just say we've got an answer. Therefore, it's true. And a lot of your sort of statements today have been, well, there's moral things. There's the golden age of Islam. There are arguments from consequence. The arguments that kind of go, oh, well, if Islam is true, then it is a good outcome. And we don't base what is true on whether there is a good outcome or a bad outcome. We base it on whether we have the evidence to back up its actual existence. So we need that evidence from you, not just assertions that it's true. Yes. Thank you for that, Mark. So yeah. So if you were to study religions, the history of religions, even Hinduism, for example, there is a one creator God, which of course sprouts into other minor gods. There has always been one creator God, which is central to all, nearly all religions in the world. Zoroastrianism, there is also one creator God, which sprouts into other idolatrous gods. There's also Christianity. Christianity is supposed to be one God, but then it sprouts into three gods. And many other religions in the world will actually have an essential one God being, which eventually evolved into multiple. You're breaking up a bit. We're having an internet lag. So it's all events in the world. Can you repeat that? I didn't get any of that. You cut out. Oh, okay. So in Islam, we believe that Islam is the primordial religion. It's the one true God, the religion of the one true God. Humankind over the ages corrupted this one true religion and eventually descended into immorality and started to worship other idols and other philosophies and other beings. So actually, just to clarify my point regarding atheism and worshiping materialism, I was just using that as an example. I wasn't trying to imply that all atheists worship materialism, by the way. I mean, like you said, there are some atheists which do, who do and there are those who don't. But my point was that atheists, regardless whether you worship materialism or otherwise, you do have something, a philosophy or a central ideology which you turn to. And this is what I mean by worship. So I think your point regarding creation, I think I would need to leave that to my partner like him. Maybe perhaps, if he wants to elaborate on that, perhaps he could do so. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. So I was just going to say, I mean, when Kraus did a debate with, I think it was Hamza tortoise and they went over it. But basically, you have logical inconsistencies. Like, so when people say, oh, there's something from nothing, sure, Kraus can redefine nothing, but he's basically saying like nothing somehow produced something. So this void produced something which is incoherent in a sense. So it's illogical. And then when you go to, for example, even if you take evolution as a truth, the scientific truth, how does no life breathe life? So you're saying that there's just nothingness and then it produces something. And then somehow this basically now space and time somehow just produces something out of thin air. You are basically, you have to take this on faith. I mean, you're, there's no logical reason to believe that. And then I did have a question for you guys, which again, it goes more to like, basically, are you guys denying human experience in a sense? Because, like I said before, like, you do perceive free will. So I just want like a yes or no, like, so do you believe you have free will? Like, even though, like, are you rejecting, you're saying I don't have free will. And I morals don't exist. But I perceive that I have morals. Like, how do you, how do you coincide those two things? So go ahead, Mark. No, no, you can take that one if you want. Go for it. Well, my, my perceived morals come from my understanding of wellbeing. Like my, my understanding that my rights, as far as what I can do, and that someone else's face, if I choose to punch them, you know, and this is, this is like, as social creatures, we figure this out on our own, you know, over the course of time, existing with each other, we have to realize that we're not going to get anywhere if we rape each other, murder each other, steal from each other, lie to each other. In order to get anything done as a social species, we have to be cohesive and we have to work together. And you don't need religion to figure this out. This is simply self-observant. You know, we look at, go ahead, sorry, go ahead. No, I was gonna say, I agree with you. You don't need religion per se on that. But for example, again, it goes back to the inherent absurdity of, of these conclusions and atheism, right? I think it's inherently absurd. Because basically you're saying, well, my morality is that because we're social creatures, and we've just evolved in this way, I have a moral imperative to do things. Well, why? One, two, you have an immoral imperative to get along with and I shouldn't punch Dusty, but what if I, what if I just feel like it and I want to? I mean, there's no, there's no reason for me to believe in your morality if it's just random whims and we're just fragments of stardust that came out of nowhere with no, you know what I mean? Like with just cause and effect, and I'm a product of my, my worldview and my life and my experiences and yada, yada, yada. So no, there isn't, there isn't no reason to, like if you value your own well-being, it's tied to the well-being of the society, right? You can't be well if there is no human society. Humans do not cope well alone. And we know this from, you know, if you isolate a human in, in, you know, solitary confinement, they do not do well at all. You need to have a societal structure around you to be well. So if you even value your own well-being, and, you know, I'd say that is ubiquitous. I wouldn't say it's, it's a universal because there are exceptions of people that, you know, don't think that, but it certainly is ubiquitous that people value their own well-being. So that isn't, that isn't something that's a problem. But if you, you're sort of conflicting ideas here, because you're sort of going to determinism, which I don't know if determinism is true or not. I don't know. It seems like we have free will, but it seems like the earth is flat as well. And we know that's not true. A lot of our intuitions and you're appealing to intuitions, they're good for making quick decisions. And I've told you this before, but they're not a good reliable way to actually find out the truth. They're just things that occur to us and seem to be reflectively, we know offhand, but a lot of them are false. Like when we look down an alley and it's really dark and we see shadows and we go, Oh, is that someone? That's our intuition that it's dangerous. That is no way to decide whether that is true or not. What we do is investigate and find out if there is actually something there. So these quick thinking intuitions are not a good way to evaluate it. And you're also sort of making an argument or an appeal to consequences called basically saying, well, if there is no objective morals, then it's bad because there is no hard standard for everybody. But that doesn't make it true. It just means that you're uncomfortable with the idea and you don't like it. It's the same as if someone says, well, if I don't win the lotto tomorrow, I'll be broke. Well, yeah, but that's the reality of the situation. What you like has no impact on whether it is true or not true. Yeah, so I, oh, no, you go ahead. But I was just going to say, I mean, again, I could, I could lay these very same claims to you. So for example, you're saying, well, I should care about the well being of human beings. Well, like if again, if it's just an evolutionary trait, just like religion, why can't I discard it? So if you're saying, oh, we're just involved to believe in God, and it's just an arbitrary thing, well, then why shouldn't, why can't I say, oh, well, I'm involved to care about other humanity and human beings, but I don't and I shouldn't. Okay, well, arbitrary is a very specific word. It means that there is no deterministic, completely and utterly random and evolution isn't evolution is a selective process. It's deterministic process. So it basically will select what is, what, what will survive and what won't survive. So yes, if you have absolutely no concern with your own well being, and you don't care about being miserable or, you know, your life ending or being locked up forever, then you can do whatever you want. There appears to be nothing stopping you. But if you care about your own well being, if you care about the well being of society, then you can form a moral system of that. There is no problem with that and it's called intersubjectivity and means that all of us agree that human well being, at least our own, is important or almost all of us. It is ubiquitous. Now, the whole idea that evolution is arbitrary is nonsense. We've evolved as social creatures. But even if you make the argument, hey, everything's deterministic, I don't believe that. But even if you do, then that even more says that there is an objective moral standard. Because if you have evolved deterministically, there will be a correct way to be a human. You know, like, like there's a correct way to be a computer. And if it malfunctions, it doesn't work. Yeah. So if I say a correct way to be human would be to believe in God then, since we evolved that way, what would be, what would be your answer to that? You'd have to prove that we evolved to believe in a God. Okay, so like sociological studies, religious studies, like the studies of all human societies, the studies of religion, the fact that the majority of people even today still believe in spiritualness, like this isn't enough for you then. You're just still going to reach that. You've got a problem there because you're equating morality, something that is sort of a way of how to behave with a sort of a ontological statement, a statement about reality. Is there a God? Right. Regardless of how we evolved, even if we evolved to believe in a God, it doesn't mean that God is true. Just as we evolved to, because when in the dawn of humanity, when you saw a Bush Russell, you automatically reflectively asked because the people that didn't got eaten by tigers basically, that's the analogy how it's described. So you will see things and sort of have fear responses to things that are not actually threats because the ones that survived are the ones that responded. So even if that is true, it does not bear on whether it is reality that something is there or not. So you're trying to say, hey, we've got a moral imperative or we've got a tendency to believe in a higher power. That makes it true. No, it doesn't. You need evidence for that in order to show that it's true. Yeah. So that goes back to my point where I'm saying like, okay, so I have these logical proofs, right, the Kalam contingency argument, things like that, on top of the fact that this is true in relation to human beings. And I think these commute collectively should point to that God is more probable than not having a God. And then I didn't get an answer, by the way, from you guys. And I just want to go back to it real quick. So do you guys trust your reality? So again, like when you believe, when you see that you have moral action, moral choice, you perceive that you have free will, are you basically just rejecting these concepts? Or do you believe that we have these, like your perception is true? Like what you perceive in reality? Because you're saying, I see a shadow, it could be a ghost, like people perceive it to be a ghost, but that's not actually real. And I should investigate it. And then, you know, so basically, people's reality isn't true. So I'm saying this leads to basically hyperscepticism and absurdity. That's why I'm saying I think atheisms are rational, like the conclusions become irrational. But we don't really have a choice, though. I mean, when you wake up in the morning, you have no choice but to accept the reality around you. So then when it comes to researching to find out truths that match up most accurately to reality, that's when we have to work with the scientific method. I mean, because if you, you know, like you were saying, you were talking about the moral teachings of Islam or religion in general, and that's where we get our morals from, therein lies a really big problem too. Because when it comes to the different religions around the world, morality is a relative term. What's moral to one culture may not be moral to another culture. And then more expanded upon that is like even in your own religion, like with the with all the Hadiths and with the interpretations of the Quran, there are people like you and the Muslim apologists are seem to be lovely individuals, right? But there are people on this planet that believe and read the same book you do and think it's morally permissible to kill apostates and to kill cartoonists and to mutilate children. Like there are horrible things being done because of the justifications, the moral justifications that are proposed in your book. And again, I don't want to go into a lot of it. No, I just don't think you watched my price. So I don't want to let the Muslim apologist in here to respond to some of what you've been hearing here. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think, yeah, can I respond to the issue of violence in the religion? So I mean, yes, so as Muslims, of course, we don't agree to, you know, killing people and you know, groups like like Daesh groups like al-Qaeda. So these are actions. These are people whom we will call the how rich. So these are deviants according to Islam itself. So how do we determine if these people are deviating from the teachings of Islam? You look into the sources, you look into the Quran, you look into the hadiths and the prophet's words, you know, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam are clear that you shall not kill, in a sense, you shall not kill civilians. In fact, in Islam, we have a conduct of ethics of war, okay, which is not something you find in other regions. In fact, the prophet himself said if you were to, you know, attack the enemy, you must not burn their churches, you must not kill the women and children, you must not even cut the trees, you must even be careful not to step on the insects that are crawling on the ground. So Islam transcends other regions in the sense that there are ethics to everything that we do like I mentioned earlier. So with regards to apostasy, there are laws in Islam which clearly says that apostasy is punishable by the theft penalty, okay. There are Muslims who of course don't agree with this, but I do believe in this, there is a clear hadith which actually mentions this, but however, this must of course be brought to trial before a judge and there is due cause, due justice process, okay. So in Islam, apostasy is a crime, just as rape is a crime, murder is a crime and whatever, you know, heinous things that, you know, people do. So yeah. And yeah, so I hope I've answered that part. If I missed anything out at the point, let me know. Yeah. No problem. I just want to eject just, I don't think we'll be in trouble at this point because we've been going, but let's just watch some of the words that we use. But that's okay. Let's carry on. Go ahead, my bad. No, no, go ahead, Dusty. Go ahead. And again, I didn't mean anything, you know, unnecessarily offensive to you guys by bringing this up, but my whole point by bringing that up was that they read the same material that you guys read and they believe a lot of the same things that you guys believe, but this is my point is that if this book is handed down from a good moral God, then there should not be any deviation. There shouldn't be people that can read this text and perform one thing or read the text and believe a different thing, as far as the morality of it is concerned. No, I get what you're saying, but that's just category like that's just how do I explain it? That's just wrong because that's just like, for example, have you taken like a media literacy class? For example, like there's ways we can go sit both watching movie, right? And there's jokes about it. Like there's a famous anime called Berserk, right? Okay, Guts is the main character. We're supposed to empathize and like Guts the protagonist, right? And Griffith is this dude who lusts for power. And in it, he kills his entire band of people with him, right? His army. And he sacrifices them to like demons, basically. Okay. And then the joke is, is there people who will watch this anime and with a half meme, some half straight face, and they'll say, Oh, actually Griffith did nothing wrong. And their point is, is that he believes that ends justify the means, right? Or, and basically this goes to media literacy, like people can both all read the same Quran and come to different conclusions because they're not thinking about it. They're not reflecting on it. They're not asking people of knowledge. And so just because some lay person wants to become like al-Qaeda or ISIS and do horrible things in the name of Islam, that doesn't disprove Islam that just says that these people are basically, I mean, not the smartest. Okay, I can see where you're getting at. I'd like to back up Dusty's point here, because you're basically, for a start, you're making sort of what's called a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're basically saying these people all claim to be Muslims. They all claim to follow the will of Islam. And you're saying, Hey, they're not true Muslims, because they don't follow my version. While they're saying, Hey, you guys are not true Muslims, because you're not prepared to take the actions necessary to promote Islam in the world. So we don't know who to believe. And it really isn't our problem. It's your problem that all of these people claim to be Islam. And they all claim to have it off the same book. Now, the secondary problem that you've got is you've already claimed that God is omniscient, so that basically, he should know that this book will be put out there and be insufficient to clarify all of these things you have claimed, you know, to have a moral standard that's consistent throughout the entire religion, to have a system of governance that's standard throughout the entire thing. If a God knew that putting this book out there would cause that, why would he do it and not take further action to ensure that, for instance, that Shia and Sunni didn't have the huge schism that killed so many people in arguing over who is right, it seems baffling that a God would do that. Yeah, so I understand what you're saying, but what was it? Sorry, I got super distracted because something was happening in my house, apparently. Did you need me to repeat anything? Yeah, can you summarize it? So you're saying that the responsibility is on us and then you're saying no true Scotsman and then... Yeah, so they all claim to be Muslims and we can't decide who's the Muslim, so it's a no true Scotsman because, you know... Oh yeah, yeah, sorry, sorry, yeah, so there's actually... Yeah, yeah, okay. Excuse me, so in the chron it actually does discuss this, so it says, basically to summarize, people there are, in the book there are clear guidelines and these are major importance of major importance and in the book there will be things that only God knows and people who want to spread mischief and be mischievous will twist things for basically their own ends. So basically, and that's the same with anything, so like you can read any book and come to incorrect conclusions, but there is consensus and the vast majority of the world, the Islamic world, there is an orthodoxy and they do all Shiasuni, they all agree, pray five times a day, they all say, make Hajj, they all give pilgrimage, basically excuse me, pilgrimage, all gives a cat, basically they're all in agreement in these concepts, there's only one God, the Supreme Being, the Sustainer, the Creator of everything, so it's not different. The only thing they're agreeing is to quote-unquote how to bring about quote-unquote like an Islamic world and obviously they're doing things that are inherently un-Islamic, I mean in Hadith it talks about it, in the Koran it talks about it, so there, I would, I mean people have argued that they're basically in a, and I don't want to talk to your people because it's, but they're basically saying that they're not Muslim because they're using their own whims to basically enact revenge, right? So like for example, when Osama bin Laden did an interview, he said, oh, a 9-11 isn't an Islamic thing, I can't do that under Islam, I did it because of revenge, the religion forbids it, but many people don't know that, for example. Can I add on to the, sorry, can I add on to what Hussain said? So anyway, so actually this reminds me of this, I'm sure you guys know of this parable where the blind, who are blind men, were in a room and they encountered an elephant, so the first man touched the size of the elephant and said, oh, this must be a wall, and then the second blind man held the task and thought that the elephant is a spear, and the fourth and the fifth person holding the elephant parts, elephant must be just one part of the elephant itself. So, you know, deriving from this parable, you see a blind man, if they looked at one part of a thing, they would of course perceive one interpretation to be their worldview. So how do we resolve this in Islam? Of course, we have scholars, we have the ulama to interpret and to explain to us, or to understand what the text says. Now, these groups like, you know, these howardish groups, like brother Hussain, I wouldn't make taqfeed upon them, so the concept of taqfeed is that we as communicate them and we call them, you know, non-Muslims out of the four of Islam, and we are forbidden from doing this. I would say that they are Muslims in a sense, but they are deviants, okay. That's the best I could do, okay, in order to avoid the taqfeeling of them. So they probably understand or understood the context of one particular principle just by looking at one aspect, but they did not see the whole thing holistically, so that is why when they look at, like what the brother said, when Osama OBL decided to do what he did, he said that he didn't do this out of, because it's Islam, but because it's out of revenge or political motivations or whatever it is that motivates him. So it is not about the religion, it's about how the person interprets one particular part, but they do not take into context the other parts which form the whole picture, just like the parable that I just mentioned. Well, it's weird because we can understand that a blind person, and in this case the prophets of Islam and the people following Islam are not going to get the whole picture from touching the elephant, but a god should be able to understand that as well and find a different way to communicate the elephant to those blind people. Like they should be able to come up, we're not talking about a human that is limited by any kind of sort of corporeal means of doing this, we're talking about an omnipotent god, a god that is capable of literally anything. So you've got a problem there because you're sort of saying, hey, but these blind people are limited, they can't see the whole. Yeah, I understand that. Why doesn't God? I would say that it is already explained in the text, it's just that they refuse to listen, perhaps, or they are motivated by other desires, perhaps. And God knew that, they knew that they wouldn't listen, they were motivated by others. Yeah, but then they fail the test, like the this is the test of life. So it's a temporary settlement for human beings to be tested, to reflect on our humanity, to reflect on our experiences, to reflect on life, to reflect on the beauty of the world, the ecosystem, how everything works in a unison almost, like these things you should be reflecting on, and they reflect the majesty of God. And so, is it good that we're tested? Sorry, just a small question, is it good that we're tested? Yes, trials and tribulations and tests make you grow. So like when you have a child and you give them responsibility and they fail, then of course, then, you know, then they grow through that test and that failure. So it's a good thing. Okay, so let's relate that back to the problem of evil that you said doesn't exist. And the Muslim apologists said that all of the evils are tests for people. That means that it is good that a child gets leukemia. Is that right? Yeah, they've talked about that. So even like other Christianity, that's a good thing. Yes, it could be. It could be. So for example, like when they talk about the children of Palestine, when they talk about, for example, like the children of Palestine or anything like that, so for example, it's like a martyrdom, they could go directly, they go to directly to heaven, all children are believers, and it could be saving them from future sins. It could be saving them from many things. So we don't know, we have limited knowledge. So how could we know? We don't know. So all of the people being killed in Palestine is a good thing. It is, it may be a good thing and it may be a test for them. Yeah, but again, for them, it may be a test for us. Yes. Yes. Yes, it's a test for us. It's a test for them. It is, it may be a good thing in the long run. It may be a trial and tradition that in the, in the higher up after the, and a good outcome will come out, come out of it. Yeah. Majid, you're only able to make this, this justification because of your theistic beliefs. Somebody from the outside looking in who doesn't share these theistic beliefs won't reach that conclusion. I mean, of course, the child getting leukemias terrible, regardless of the situation, there's no good, there's no good that comes about of that in my opinion. I mean, we talked about like how you can read, you can read any book and draw different conclusions. And this, this is where the muddy waters come in. You know, this is the, this is what I mentioned initially in my opener is that, that point of nomenosum, that point that, that separates your religion from the rest of the religions is the only saving grace you have as to try and improve the validity of it because we have to compare the teachings and morals of Islam with all the other teachings and morals of all the other religions. But more importantly, the truth kind of claim of the God, that's what we're comparing it to. And, and without that, I mean, where do we, why, why are we going any further? I have a question, by the way. You guys brought up that the Muslim apologist, he said that you guys were saying that he's, he's appealing. And then at one point you said, I'm appealing to consequences. And are you guys utilitarians? Just because like consequentialism, like, in a sense, it's an atheistic philosophy, which is, yeah, the consequences. So I just want to, I just want to verify, like, is that a yes or no? You guys are. Yeah. Yes, I am. But you've got, you've got a misunderstanding of what consequentialism is. It basically is the actual consequences decide whether it's good or bad. But I think I think I'm not a sort of, I would certainly put an intent in there, like intent consequentialism. So if you're trying to save someone, that is, that is still good, whether or not the outcome is bad or not. But that's completely different than making the argument that something is true, because it has good consequences. So you're not understanding the argument from consequences. No, no, no. Hang on, hang on. Let me, let me explain. Let me explain. It's like saying, well, I put a lotto ticket in one lotto and I had a big windfall and it's really good for my life. It's really good for my well-being. That's, then that is a good thing. As opposed to the appealed consequences, which is saying, Hey, I should spend all my money now because I'd like it if I win the lotto tomorrow. So I'm going to believe in it because I like the consequences of that action. So you're not, you're sort of, it's a category error that you're making. It's not even comparable. I was just trying to get verification, but to say that, for example, so when I'm bringing up, for example, that like the vast majority of human beings believed in God, and I'm saying that all these other religions fail. And of course, they lead to atheism because they don't even truly grasp what God is. When, when they're writing their theology, theology and their books and stuff like that, right? Then of course I'm saying those things are false. And when human being innately like turned to spirituality, turned to God, based off human beings, like we naturally crave this. And then it goes back to where I said that even under a utilitarian framework, the vast majority of world being religious is better. So for example, like Muslim people give the most, the Muslim people have the highest, one of the highest life satisfaction, for example, while atheism, while you may disagree, it doesn't lead to nihilism, like the vast majority of atheists when pulled, they have higher rates of depression and suicide, for example. So if again, it goes back to, are you accepting reality? Like the Islamic world fits with the innate predisposition of human beings. So when human beings are Muslims, they feel satisfied, they're living out basically the meaning and purpose of being human, where atheists, they're rejecting it. And in a way, like I'm saying, when you, maybe not you, but when you reject free will, when you're rejecting your, that you have choice, when you're rejecting that morals exists, despite everyone that's human perceiving these things, then you are basically denying reality. And of course, that's going to make you depressed. Of course, that's going to make you have anxiety and anxiousness because you're not living within the real world. No, that's not true. So you're mixing two different categories here, which is absolutely terrible. You're saying, does it feel good to believe in this thing? It may in fact feel good to believe in a omnipotent guy that's in charge of the universe and that we've got no problems because they're going to sort it all out and believe that, hey, kids getting leukemia and stuff is actually a good thing because it's a trial, which I might add brings up the problem of should we be trying to stop, say if the war in Palestine is a bad thing, or sorry, if it's a good thing, because it's a trial for us and the people and all this stuff should be even try to stop it. So you've got problems there. But aside from that, if I want to believe that, hey, that's all preordained, it might make me feel good, but that is completely irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not true. And as we've said earlier, it is not a belief in God that is the majority of the world. What we have is a belief to we want to give an explanation rather than have no explanation at all. And I've already been through this. So we see the progression from animism, like blaming things like the wind on spirits and, you know, volcanoes as spirits kind of thing to polytheism that individual spirits turned into gods to monotheism, where one God is basically sovereign over it all. There is no studies that go into, oh, well, a person has an innate belief in God that is not true. They're basically saying that people have a willingness to believe in an explanation over no explanation at all. But that is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not that explanation is true. I could explain a bang in my house, but for on a magic unicorn, it doesn't mean that is true because it makes me feel better. So you've got to come up with something better than it feels good to believe this stuff in order to demonstrate the actual truth of it. Okay. So what's the apology? Do you have something you want to say first or? Yeah, I think I wanted to say something about the issue of Palestine. So, I mean, while you're saying you can just stop your video for a second. If you want to just stop your video for a second, maybe that'll help the audio for now because your internet's given you a little trouble. Yeah, I'm okay with that. So yeah, so anyways, just to elaborate on the point of why we Muslims believe that something bad or perceived to be bad and evil happening in the world occurs. So of course, war is not a good thing. We do not, of course, want war at all in any place. Of course, we do not want to see a child suffering from chemo or cancer or whatever disease. So we are not saying that this is absolute. We're not saying that when we say that it is a good thing, we don't mean that we want that to happen or we want that to occur. We are just saying that there may be hidden meanings or there may be a hidden understanding of why such an event occurs. So for example, like you said, why the war in Palestine happened and why are the people, you know, are the Muslims in Palestine suffering? So we say, basically, we Muslims, as Muslims, we say war war war, God knows best. And like I said, it may be a good thing for them in the sense that in the future, there may be a better outcome that will occur. Okay. Of course, it will also mean that they had to suffer, they had to go to famine and a lot of trial as a test of their own faith, as a test of what's occurring right now. So we as outsiders, of course, as Muslims who are not involved in the war, obviously would want to do our best to stop the war. So for those who are experiencing that, we say that, you know, this may be a trial, this may be a tribulation for them, and there may be a better outcome of it. So that is, I think this relates to my partner's point about religion, especially Islam, gives a Muslim a sense of self-confidence and self-assurance that God is always there watching and presiding over such events and that everything has a reason for, there's always a causal effect for anything that happens in this world. And I don't think, honestly speaking, I don't mean this to be offensive, and I apologize in advance if it sounds so. I don't think atheism has an answer to this. If something evil were to happen to me, if I were in 80s, I don't think I would be in a sane sense of mind. I would probably be very upset, I would be obviously very anxious, and I would not be assured that, because I don't believe in a God creator, why would I need to be assured that there will be something good that comes out of a trial or tribulation, for example. So yeah, that's my point, yeah. Dusty, did you want to...? I thought, Hussain, did you have something you wanted to add? Okay, so this is the problem. You've basically said, well, you know, bad things happen in the world. We can kind of agree on that, and you're sort of saying, hey, it gives me comfort to believe that there is some good that can come out of it. And I'm not saying that some good can't, but I'm still saying that that event is a bad event, and it doesn't, just because your feelings are salvaged by thinking that a omnipotent, omniscient God is orchestrating all of this, doesn't actually make it true when you sort of didn't address that point. Like the whole sort of matrix question, would you rather have the hard truth or an easy lie is basically where it comes to? Like would you rather believe something that makes you feel better, or would you rather know what the truth is, even though it causes you heartache? An eyeful one would want to know what the truth is. It's like if somebody is in a marriage and they're being cheated on, would that person rather just continue and believe that it's not happening, or wants to know the truth about what's happening. And whether or not it feels good to believe something that may or may not be true doesn't make it true. That doesn't. It's not evidence for truth. It's not even a good way to find out whether it may be true. It's absolutely useless, because what you will do is use confirmation bias, and we're very aware of how confirmation bias works, to fit things in with what you want to be true because it makes you feel better. And I'm not interested in doing that. And that's not what the debate's about. It's not this debate isn't, does Islam feel good to believe? That isn't the debate. The debate is whether or not it is true. By the way, do you want to say something, or do you want me to...? You can go, because mine was just going to be asked why Dusty and Mark don't think the contingency argument is good, I guess. Okay, so just to touch on your point, Mark, so yeah, I mean, I would say that it may sound or it may seem as though this is unrelated, but for me as a Muslim, everything is, like I said, it's all interconnected. So how would I put it? Do you see the thing is, as Muslims, we believe that, you know, God is always the source of knowledge, the source of existence. And why do I feel good that God exists? Well, God made His presence known to us in the form of, as per what the Quran says, the creation of the universe. So I think you would actually need to trace back, or you would need actually to go back to the existence of God itself, because you see the reason why you express your skepticism now is because you don't believe in the God, you don't believe that God exists. So this is actually the reason why whatever we say here regarding the problem of evil in Islam, and why we feel self-assured that God may sound irrelevant to you. So I think if we address your concerns or your understanding about the existence of God, or why is it that God does exist and why we do need to believe in the God creator, then that might actually tie in to the rest of our statements. So these arguments that we make, they are not in a canton, you see, they are all interconnected and interrelated, sorry, and they are all, they all lead to just one thing, which is basically Tawhid. Yeah, so I think Brother Hussein wants to say something, so yeah, just to continue brother. Yeah, so I guess, so what we're saying is like, I think the Muslim apologists to summarize it saying, basically if you accept that God exists, you know, then the problem of evil isn't actually a problem because there's this, you know, other information that could be available, which is ironic, because like T-Jump kind of talked about this, where he says like, oh, in a perfect world, there may be like other variables we can know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, he's basically inventing AI, but making it God. Anyway, so he's not in the debate, so I understand, I understand. So my whole point, though, was to say, basically, you mentioned, I think it was either you or Dusty mentioned Krause, if you believe there's this, I forgot what you called it, but the void or the quantum field or whatever. If you want to call it that, right, you know, can't that, for example, the God in a sense, like what if we logically can see that there needs to be some type of necessary being because of you can't have an infinite regress essentially, like what to use this necessary being, if not God then. But there's no, there's no, there's nothing to jump to the conclusion that this necessary thing has agency. Like this could have, it could have always existed, but there's no, there's nothing that says that this has to be a personal being or that has to interact with us on a personal level. Yeah, I've heard that rebuttal, but how is that a good rebuttal? Because for, so for there to be nothing and then all of a sudden something implies agency. Like if I have to create the chair, I have to create the chair. Hussain, Hussain, I think you're understanding what being in philosophy means. Like you're using a specific word that means like a state of being, like a state of existing, like it doesn't mean what we call an agent in philosophy, something that has intentionality. So the necessary being may be the universe itself. We're not claiming to know, right? We're not claiming to know what this necessary being or state of being is, but you are. We're saying we don't know. Like, and you keep bringing up Lawrence Krauss and for a start, you know, as I explained, his universe from nothing was a catchy title, but it didn't really reflect what his hypothesis was and his hypothesis was quantum field at the start of time. Now, Sean Carroll, for instance, has postulated and made a hypothesis that, hey, the universe may have been in a temporal state, meaning it didn't have a beginning, right? Many worlds also says that, hey, it didn't have an actual beginning because sort of the idea of the time before time is nonsensical. So there's all these different hypotheses and Lawrence Krauss's universe from nothing is one of them, but we don't claim to know that is the case. We're saying, hey, here is some possibilities. It needs further investigation. We're not claiming that that is the case, but you are claiming to know where the universe came from, that it is an omnipotent God, an omniscient God, and you don't want to demonstrate any of it. And if this is the best you've got for evidence for God is your feelings, people believe it like an ad-popular to all the people in the world, to, well, you can't explain, say, determinism versus free will kind of thing, which you've got problems as well. That's not evidence for a God. And all of this aside, postulating the God is one step, but separating that postulation from all the other God claims that have ever existed before Islam and ever existed after Islam, that's what you have to focus on, man. We've got to find a way to separate them. Yeah, I already told you it's easy. So Judaism is basically now an ethnic religion that only allows Jewish people. If God is the creator of all humanity, I mean, that would obviously auto disqualify it to say that only Jewish people are righteous people and that God only cares about Jewish people would be incorrect to say that God is a triune God is incorrect to say that God would be pagan like a pagan God, then that's incorrect. These things are already auto disqualifying of those religions. So that was my whole point. I don't think that auto disqualifying at all. Like you've sort of said, Hey, I'm not going to like it if God sort of, this is again an argument from consequence, you're sort of saying, Well, I wouldn't like it if God had one chosen people and chose to promote those people as special over everybody else in the world. And I agree that that would suck, but that's not an argument on whether it's true or not. So that's just one point of view. So for example, right, if there if there isn't a necessary being right, this being would have to be power be powerful, right? But within the Jewish scriptures, they've corrupted their religion, right? And they now say that actually Jewish people debated God, Jewish leaders, rabbinical Judaism, they debated God and beat God. So if God is all powerful, how is his creation more powerful for them than him? Paganism also has this problem. Again, they're diminishing God's stature as a necessary being, then the same thing happens with Christianity when they're saying that actually God had to reduce himself to human form and then kill himself to take on all the sins of to forgive humanity, right? He had to quote unquote lower himself. Again, these things aren't necessary beings. What they're describing are categorically not necessary beings. Does that make sense? Well, again, that only leaves Islam. That literally only just just quickly as a point of order, just an omnipotent God could do whatever he wants, including lose the debate or lower himself. There's no problem with that. There's, you know, you're sort of saying, Hey, I don't like that. Well, you can not like it all you want, but that's not logically contradictory. Sorry, go ahead, Dustin. No, I was just going to again reiterate though, like, I can appreciate the points that you're trying to address about these other religions. But again, finding faults in these other religions does nothing to postulate or provide evidence towards the positive claim of your religion. It just shows faults in theirs. Yeah, so if, if a God did exist and he sent messengers to people, they would all be preaching the same message, right? So when human beings corrupt that message, that's not the problem of the messenger messengers. That's the problem of the human beings later corrupting them. And we see evidence of that. So for example, like the Muslim apologists had mentioned, like historically, there have been the there's a debate currently. I know Mark mentioned this, but he said people believe that it's an evolution. So first we had just ritual spiritualism and then we had paganism and now we have monotheism and that it was an actually like an evolution. But that's just projecting evolution onto this. In reality, there's been people, they've said that there's been proof of monotheism throughout this like history. So basically other people are just corrupting monotheism. And that's all Islam says. So these are I would say truths of Islam over other religions. You guys had mentioned that you're saying, okay, that you can grant that there's a necessary being or necessary something, but you don't think it has agency. And again, this goes back to my problem with what you guys are saying. So how can it be a void basically or a static field, wherever you want to, whatever you want to call it, and then all of a sudden it changes. So that by the very definite logical conclusion for something to change, there has to be a will or an agency, there has to be some type of movement or cause or something like that, right? Whatever wordage you want to use that that implies that a God is personal, right? And then it has will agency. Are you trying to say if something changes, like for instance, you know, a rock giving way and falling down a slope that there has to be will involved? No, no, not that's not what I'm saying. Well, you said for something to change, there has to be a will. So I'm not sure what the universe sounds like. It sounds like it sounds like that you're saying in order for the universe to change its state, there has to be some kind of agent with a will behind and determining that to be so. And I'm wondering how you get there. Yeah, how do you how do you get that life came out of nothing? Well, we don't think life came out of nothing. Well, I don't know for sure, but our best current hypothesis is a biogenesis, which is that certain chemicals, I mean, I lean towards amyloid world myself, but there are other are other hypothesis like, you know, thermal vents or, or, you know, panspermia, there's a lot of hypothesis out there. But, you know, just because we say we don't know doesn't mean you get to do a God of the gaps and say, oh, well, you don't know. So obviously it's God. Yeah, but it's not so it's not a God of the gaps. I'm saying that when you look at contingency. So, okay, so even if we take what you're saying, any of those theories is true, right, there had to be something before causing that causal chain, right. And again, this goes back to do you actually believe in infinite regress or, you know, that's what I'm saying. So there has to be something stopping that chain. Okay. And that I understand contingency and necessity, right. But if you're saying everything requires a necessary pause, then what's the necessary cause of God. And if you say, then you're just failing to understand, hang on, hang on, hang on. Then if God, God didn't begin to exist, He's the necessary cause for the universe, there's no reason why the universe can't be the necessary cause, or a larger cosmos outside the universe being the necessary cause, or some other naturalistic phenomenon being the next, because don't forget that when you're talking about causality, you're really including temporal things like you need to have time in order for that to happen. So if you go outside of the current visible universe, you're basically talking about, you know, something where there was no time. So does contingency and necessity even apply to an atemporal universe? We don't know. We have no idea. And neither do you. That's the thing. But you're claiming that God has to be the cause while not even knowing or able to demonstrate what the cause of the universe was. You just assert it's God. Yeah, to say what caused God is to not understand like the definition of a necessary being. So it's by its very existence, it has to be necessary. So God would have to be necessary. You can call this whatever you want. If you want to use the word universe, razzle, frass, like whatever random word you want to use, what were the concepts we're describing when we talk about Allah, we're talking about the necessary being the first mover, these type of things. So that's all we're saying is that that that entity exists. Yeah, but why can't the universe be the necessary being? If you want to believe that is the universe. I don't know. But you're sort of making a deductive argument. You're sort of saying, Hey, there's nothing else that can be the necessary being except for God. But when I ask you, well, why can't this other thing that's naturalistic be the necessary state of being for the, you know, everything you say, no, it's got to be God. That's that's not not so. So what is this naturalistic thing? The universe. That's, you know, I don't know for sure. I can't say but why can't the universe be the necessary state of being? So it's unfalsifiable, right? We can never test for that, right? Scientifically. Right, which is why I don't claim to know that's the case. Okay, that's fine. You should be saying you're not that you're an atheist. Why I don't believe that God exists. Yeah, isn't the God claim kind of unfalsifiable as well? Say it again. Correct. Isn't the God claim also unfalsifiable? I mean, not not to me like I've explained with like the contingency argument, the column argument, these type of things. And I don't have a problem with ignoring or not needing signs for certain claims. So like I said, like math, math, for example, like certain mathematical concepts, certain axioms, those are unfalsifiable. We can't test them, but we know them to be true like innately. So okay, so hold on a second. What falsifies your God? Say it again. What is the criteria for you're saying that God is falsifiable to you? What is the criteria for falsification of your God? Yeah, I told you, when you think logically about God, when you think, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no falsification. No, no, no, I'm saying it's not falsifiable. I don't put falsifiability as my God, my God, or how I think of things isn't I don't only care about falsifiability and like naturalism or science. Like there are things that we know that are outside of falsibility. That's my point. So like for example, like when you say, oh, we just have to accept reality, you accept that you have free choice, like you have the perception of free choice, you have the perception of moralities, you just accept these, you can't also, can you falsify them? Okay, so math is a language describes things in our reality, right? It's basically a modeling of reality based upon a logical system that's descriptive, it's a language. So something that would falsify the way that maths works is if we it conflicted with our reality and we knew it did, like if you put two and two together, it equals five in maths, but there's four in reality, that would falsify math, right? That that's easily falsifiable. It's so easy to do. So what we're talking about when we're talking about falsifiability is how do you know that it is not true, right? And you're sort of talking about, you know, how do you falsify the senses kind of thing, which is kind of impossible, you're right, you have to sort of presuppose your senses. But as Dusty pointed out, we kind of have no choice, our senses are just inputs into us, and we don't really have, and we don't have anything else to go by. Like, it's not like we can go, oh, well, I'm not going to trust my senses, I'll trust these other senses that I have, we don't have that choice, we have to go with what we've got essentially. But yeah, all of the things that you've brought up are falsifiable. And we falsify our senses all the time, you know, there's a mirage, it looks like water, we investigate, and it's not water, we know our senses can be falsified. Absolutely. That doesn't mean we can't trust them, and pragmatically, we have to because they're all we have. But, you know, the things that you've brought up are actually falsifiable. Like the law, we can test that. Well, sure, when it stops working, then it's falsified. But stuff like that, you've got to have logic to prove logic, for instance. So you're sort of going to solipsism, which is sort of a presuppositionalist position, that, you know, you can't justify these, these, you know, things like your senses, for instance. And it's not like we've got no evidence for our senses, right? It's we don't need absolute certainty, we just need enough evidence to substantiate the claims being made. And the claim that hey, I am getting inputs from the world around me, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that, right? I do have a lot of evidence to suggest that it's called my sensor sensory input. I'm not claiming absolute confidence or 100% certainty or anything like it. But that is really good evidence. But when we ask about your God, it's like, well, there's a contingency argument, or there's people feel good. You know, that's not evidence of any. So again, I don't know how you why you don't think that they're their evidence. So again, so like it goes like, Oh, when you see a table, for example, this is a really crude example. But when you see a table, you intrinsically know, for example, that there's a creator of the table. When we see the material world, we know we should know that there had to be some type of creator. That's a lot that's a logical conclusion. So that is these type of philosophical arguments are proofs. And to dismiss them for so and I saw maybe I'm not grasping what your reason for dismissing them are. I understand Dusty is saying that, okay, well, it doesn't prove your God, technically. But I was trying to argue that it has to be a will that God has to have a will that the necessary being, excuse me, I should say, in this argument has to have a will, the creator has to have that will to start the universe. And everything we have currently points to that the universe started. So even if you wanted to take and maybe this would be like a let all our current information right now points to it's more probable. And that's what I was saying, more probable that a God exists than not. Um, Dusty, that's a teleological argument. Do you want to handle that one? Yeah, I was just getting ready to say, how did you come about with that probability? Like how'd you come about figuring that probability? Because you're real quick, you you started well, I mean, I think I think there's certainly to be honest, I think there's certainly I'm just trying to get you guys where I'm at. So in a way, does that make sense? So like I said, for example, like when I think atheism leads to absurdity, because when you when you start to question these things, and then many atheist philosophers, for example, again, they point to so okay, if everything is just a causal chain, then then for example, like free will doesn't exist, we perceive free will. So again, you're negating reality. And I don't understand, like you guys are just saying, well, I have to begrudgingly believe in that. But you are giving away the you're giving away that you don't truly believe your position then. Well, here's the thing, like, they argue, and I'm not necessarily on board with sort of a hard determinism position, I lean towards compatibilism, but you know, I kind of sit on the fence that I don't know whether we have free will or not. But what we have is definitely at least the illusion of free will. So it's like somebody pointing at a mirage, right, and saying, well, look, there's water. And then you saying, well, I don't think I think that's the illusion of water. I think we have the illusion of free will. And you're going, well, now you're just denying reality, because, you know, you can definitely see it. Not just because you intuitively think something doesn't mean that is automatically true. And when you say the teleological argument, which is what you did basically, and what that is, is hey, things look designed to me, therefore they're designed. Well, number one, how did you know they're designed, right, as opposed to non designed? Okay, how do you know that? And number two, can you give me an example of the non designed thing that you're comparing it with? I do want to give you a chance to respond. And then I also want to hear from Muslim Apologists, because I know he's had a chance to sit and chew for a little bit. And I do want to check just before you answer, how you guys are doing for time. You know, we're almost hitting the two hour mark. So we haven't done it yet. Yeah, I got to go pretty soon. And then I have to let my brother's dogs out and stuff real fast, but not not right now, but soon. So okay, no worries. We'll then we'll keep the discussion going when it gets that time. And then I'll just we'll count on you Muslim Apologists to hold the floor down. And then we'll go into Q&A after you finish up there. Okay, so I'll let you carry on. And we'll get into it in a bit guys for Q&A. Sorry for injecting. Yeah, no, no, you're fine. So to mark to answer your question, I mean, so again, when when we're talking about God, we're talking about life, the necessary being. And so when we're saying that you're saying like, who designed the designer again, it's like, I think it's like failing to grasp what we mean when we say God, we're saying this is a logical conclusion. So like, just like for the word, there's no such thing as like an eligible bachelor, like bachelor by the definition means single. And so God by this definition means like the necessary being. So it's outside of all these things. And he would be the designer. So he can't be designed. That's that's what we're saying. And then you mentioned something else. But it's fine. What is, well, you're sort of saying you're comparing, you're sort of saying, hey, this thing's, you know, you look at the world and you say it's designed. Oh yeah, I wanted to ask you not where is the non designed thing you are comparing it to? Yeah, so God, God would be the non designed thing. But can you give me an example of like, why you think the world is not designed? Like why? So you guys are, it sounds like you guys are flip flopping between the world is random, but then it's not random. If that makes sense. No, I never said that. Is the world like the universe? I think since everything is random. I think that will physically like deterministic processes happen, and they're deterministic. Now we may describe them to be random, like, you know, where where a rock falls down a mountainside is is random to us, right? We call it random. But in reality, it's pseudo random. It's basically determined by the laws of physics and, you know, the appraisers, the, the where where that rock was, what, you know, how much it weighs all these different factors. So our description of random might not really be random. It might actually be just a series of deterministic processes that we can't possibly investigate because it's too complex. That's all. So we don't think the universe is random. But you sort of said, who is the creator as your very first statement? Like, you are begging the question, you are putting things in that you have not yet demonstrated that a the the cause of everything is actually an agent, something with will and decided this and creator that it created the universe. So you have to show before you can say who is the creator number one, you have to show it's a who and number two, you have to show it's actually a creator because we look at the world around us and it seems to be sort of an amalgamation of natural processes. And every time every single time a religion has said, hey, a God does this thing, a God throws lightning at people, a God forms mountains, a God, we've actually investigated and found out it to be a natural process. So you're making the claim that all of that was was started by a God done by a God. Prove it. Demonstrate that that is actually the case. Also to add on top of that evolution itself provides alternate explanation to this complexity that we see that's perceived design. It's not a that's not a I don't believe that even if evolution is true, I don't believe that it discounts God. You can just say it's through which God used. Do you believe in evolution? I don't really care. Like I don't have an opinion on it. I think it could be false, it could be real. You know, maybe I'm a little skeptical about it. There's a ton of information like there is a ton of evidence for evolution like papers and studies and and you know, it is probably the most singularly tested idea in our entire society. Can you show me the interspecies fossil record? The inters everything's interspecies. They say that YouTube buzzword right there. But no, no, no, that's what they said. I was just I was just looking about it. I need a research anyway. I don't really have an opinion. I don't think it disproves God. I can show you mosaic organisms like you know, archaeopteryx and tectolic and things like that. Certainly show you that. But when you're talking about the fossil record, it's kind of like every species is is turning into something else. That's what evolution does. It just it's a little frequency changes. So everything will will change. There is no specific interspecies record. I'm not even sure what that would mean. But anyway, we're kind of getting off topic as well. I do apologize. That's mostly yeah. Yeah, let the Muslim apologists talking. I need to go real fast. Okay. Okay. No problem. Just a second. I apologize, by the way, guys. Yeah, take your time. If anybody needs to take any breaks for any other reason, you know, just let me know. Well, you know, feel free. But Muslim apologists, yeah, give us your thoughts on some of what you've been hearing here. Yeah, there isn't really much to add on because I think I agree with what mostly what brother was saying. But I'm curious to know what do you both actually believe about the concept of afterlife? Or do you think that there is no afterlife? Do you think that our purpose here is to exist, to live, to survive, and then die? And then it ends there. I mean, I'm just just want to run. How would you actually explain this? Oh, yeah, I don't think there's an afterlife. I've got no reason to think there's an afterlife. Nobody has actually, you know, been properly dead for, you know, past the point where their brain has died that has come back and said, hey, yeah, there's an afterlife. So I've got no reason to believe that. And it seems that when we die, we just end. If you want to make a claim that there is some kind of afterlife, then you have to demonstrate that that claim is actually true. So again, you know, I'm really sorry, Muslim apologists, but I got to put the burden of proof on you for the claim that something else happens because I don't see this happening. Doug? No, you hit it right on the head, man, that's spot on. And then on top of that, believing that there is no afterlife puts a lot more valuable in the life that I'm currently living. You know, I don't appeal to what's going to happen in the next eternity. I focus on the now, man, I focus on the breaths that I have in my lungs, because once that's done and over with, I have no other mark to leave in the world. It's done. So yeah. So I guess this goes to the issue of morality then. Let's say if I were to go on a rampage and I murder and kill 1000 people, and then I die, and then I was never arrested for such a crime. It just ends there. And that's it. And that's it. That would be crappy, but that's the truth of it, man. There's no justice for the victims. There's no retribution for what I've done. Again, this is an argument from consequence. You know, you're basically saying, hey, well, it feels bad if somebody can do horrible things in the world and not be punished for it. But that's irrelevant to whether it is true or not. You know, I can believe that, hey, it's really unfair if I've gambled on the lotto 500 times and I haven't won anything. So I will be winning tomorrow because that's justice. But the world is unjust. It's not fair. It's not, you know, this whole idea that, oh, but it makes me feel bad is not an argument for whether or not it is true. Yeah. So I guess this also goes back to your initial skepticism about the existence of God, which is what I actually mentioned earlier. So I think if we actually address that, then it all falls into place. You see, so yeah, it's quite difficult to actually go into other aspects of Islam without actually addressing that main point, which is basically the existence of God. So yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think it's crucial as a jumping off point. I mean, to do a great dusty that the existence of God is the very first thing you would have to demonstrate in order for anybody to consider Islam true. But we don't get evidence of strong evidence. There's there's sort of weak evidence like anecdotes and you know, we have a book and you know, it feels bad if we don't I mean, that's that's not what we'd call strong evidence. And like I said, in my opening, the evidence supplied should be proportional with the extravagance or the size of the claim. So if I claim I have a dog, okay, I probably wouldn't provide a lot of evidence for that. That's fine. But if I'd said I had a dragon, you would need way more evidence to show that is actually the case, because I'm making a much bigger claim now when you claim that there's an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, you know, unseeable God that has control over everything and is responsible for literally everything in the universe. That would require a lot of evidence because that is one of the most significant claims that has ever been made in the history of humanity. Yeah, so I had a question on that. So when we brought up like Abu Talab, like when prophets did miracles as well as like prophecy, is that a good enough proof because I remember some other people, they said like, well, getting things right, you know, doesn't mean that basically God exists, if that makes sense. But the point, it's kind of like in a way like a straw man of what we're trying to argue, we're trying to say that he basically had access unknown to people at the time, except for with God, because he's predicting the future. So for example, when he, when he's saying, oh, the Romans will, I forgot the exact thing, like the Romans will be the Persians, and then the Persians will be them again or vice versa. I forgot exactly what it was. But basically, the prophecy became true. And then some people have said like historically, that was like, unlikely. And it would be the base, basically the same as like the Eskimos beating the world superpowers today. And so they said that like, oh, the fact that he got this correct, this prophecy correct is like really probably really, probably really low. So when he has all these prophecies, for example, then it goes to prove Islam is true. Another one, for example, like the Bedouins will have, it says like the Bedouins, Bedouin Arabs, so not the city Arabs, the Bedouin Arabs will be competing in building basically skyscrapers. And then he explains how basically that in another Hadith that Arabs will have treasures from the earth, which is basically oil. So when you have like, and there's a book about it, I think it says something like it's like the 2000 prophecies of Muhammad. And so the point is, is like, like a mate, Muhammad got like all of these prophecies correct. None of them were wrong. And so these are stacking on top. So how could someone who wouldn't have all access to all this information make like 2000 claims that were all true, and then have all these other claims that are true. And then you have people basically diminishing this and saying, oh, well, this isn't a proof that he just happened to got stuff right. But the point is like the difference between Muhammad, peace be upon him. And say, Dustin, the Mormon guy or not, not sure, Thomas is not strong. And then also the Mormon guy, Joseph Smith, like burnt his own church and was like, like people reported that he's basically faking prophecy. So like, does that make sense? Okay, so these these prophecies, they're kind of not very specific, except for the battle one. But how do we actually know that this was a prophecy that he had for knowledge? I mean, he could have just gambled on one side, or he could have had some knowledge of both armies that we didn't know about. Hold on, hold on. Now, it doesn't say skyscraper in the Quran, by the way, it doesn't say that the prophecy doesn't mention skyscraper. It's just tall buildings. Which is not necessarily skyscrapers and treasures from the earth does not necessarily mean oil. So you're taking this as, well, I can fit these current events to this, this very vague statements. Therefore, it must be a prophecy. No, that's not how that works. If that's your best evidence, then you are shamefully coming up short. Tall buildings is a pretty specific one. You're just using the word skyscrapers, which what the definition of a skyscraper is like a tall building, like that's the definition of it. I mean, this goes back to like when I'm saying you're not a single bachelor, or excuse me, what is it when we say bachelor, the implication of a bachelor like is that he's single with skyscrapers are tall buildings, like that that is pretty specific. No, it's not because at that time, a tall building may have been a three story house. Like that is, you know, when you say tall building, it doesn't necessarily mean a skyscraper. If I say, Oh, your house is a tall building, like it's a triple story, maybe that doesn't mean that that's a skyscraper. The two are not automatically one means the other. What did he actually mean when he said tall buildings? Did he mean, you know, Spirinettes? Maybe? Do we know that? How do you know he literally means tall buildings? We know that because I mean, I mean, you have to understand Arabia for 1400 years ago, I don't think the houses were taller than one story. Okay, there were no stores, two story buildings in here. Yeah, 1400 years ago, a mirror net, I'm sorry, a mirror net, a mirror net tall buildings. No, it's not a building. It's an attachment to a building. Yeah. Come on. Come on. I'm going to jump in right quick guys. I think that's quibbling over sort of very, very small. It's a building and it's tall. Well, just one second, Mark, you guys are welcome to keep debating and keep discussing. I'm enjoying it. As long as you guys have time, that's okay. We don't have too many questions right now in the Q and A. So if you want to keep going, or if you either, if any of you guys got plans and you want to get going, then we can go into Q and A now. I think if a son needs to go pray, we should probably... Yeah, we can do the Q and A and then I'm down Mark and Dusty, all you guys, if you want to, I know obviously it sucks. It's not going to be on MDD, but if you guys want to go to the actor show, I'm more than willing to just chill and hang out and talk more. But I do have to obviously take care of some other stuff first for like an hour. Yeah, man. That's for sure. All right. Yeah, if you got things to do, then we'll move into our Q and A and I will talk about the event that's coming up here in Texas a little bit more after the show. So hang out and we'll discuss that everybody. So Shorag Nd, thank you for your super chat is coming in, asks no disrespect. I'm genuinely curious why Islam broadcasts its praying over megaphone multiple times a day. Other religions don't do this generally. Did you hear that one? Oh, he's coming back. I'm going to repeat that one since the Muslim apologist had stepped out. This one is for you guys. So he said no disrespect. I'm genuinely curious why Islam broadcasts its praying over megaphone multiple times a day. Other religions don't do this generally. So thoughts on that Hussain and the Muslim Apologist. Yeah, a lot of, maybe he has a different answer, but a lot of Islam is about reminders and Islam specifically within the Quran has like a almost like a formulaic or repetition. And a lot of the things are basically reminding human beings. So it's a reminder every like five times a day, there's five prayers. So it's a reminder for Muslims to come and pray basically. And then there's like things like that within the Quran where like, you know, remind yourself of death, like life is temporarily like there's hadiths about like human beings only question their existence upon death, like when visiting graves and stuff like that. So there's this repetition, repetitive element to remind people that basically this existence isn't everything. And you will die. And so you should be cherishing your time. And for the most important thing, leaving the world behind and praying to God. Yeah, so just to add on to that. So basically, the azan is basically XNN, SNLM clock. Okay, so whenever they come into the mix, then we hear the call to prayer. So azan literally means call to prayer. Yeah. Alright, if we have time for the other side to engage, we can maybe entertain one minute back and forth if you guys got thoughts on what they just said. No, I real quick, I mean, when I when I hear the dictation of the Quran whenever I hear it over those speakers, I mean, it is quite beautiful. I'll add that I don't speak Arabic in the slightest word, but yeah, so yeah, I would recommend dusty if you're going to look into anything about Islam. It's supposed to be an oral tradition. So like there's very like reading it, I don't think is the same effect to like maybe listening to it. And then there's a there's that and then you have like a maybe translation. There's plenty of like YouTube videos about that. And then like the Jeremy Lang video was really good because he's he was a former atheist. So in his questions, he think he thinks were answered in the Quran. So I recommend that to anyone in the chat or watching. It is beautiful. I will say, though, there's other religions that may have been influenced by for instance, Catholicism like the early church. They do singing in Latin and speaking of the hymns in Latin, which is also beautiful. So it's not it's not as unique to Muslim religion as you would think. And a lot of these religions do have some form of arts that sort of, you know, connect people or make them feel part of a greater whole. So, you know, using loudspeakers to have people chanting the same prayers kind of thing certainly achieves that. Alright, we can move on from there. And yeah, there's actually a thing that's called quarter tuning. That's pretty interesting to the ears if you're used to hearing only a semitone music. So definitely a different flavor. Like if you hear a sitar versus a guitar and it sounds like it's just a little bit out because we we generally are using, like I say, chromatic. And anyway, I won't get into music. But yeah, I'd love to discuss with you guys sometime. You know me, who's saying you keep saying we have limited knowledge. How could we know only God knows. So how can you say it's good if you don't know just because he's the most powerful might does not make right. Yeah, so it's it's not also like, again, this goes back to what the Muslim apologists were saying, when we accept the conclusion that a God exists. And you accept Islam, for example, like within the paradigm you are accepting basically, that there are things we can't know that are outside basically human beings are infallible, but God isn't right because he's the necessary being. And then therefore we're humbling ourselves like who can we be to question God basically. So it's not only that he's all powerful, it's that he's all wise. There's like 99 names. So it's like, he's the sustainer, he's the all wise, he's the most merciful, the most compassionate, the creator, the all these things that encompass basically the attributes of God. All right, any thoughts around the panel or do you want to carry on? Yeah, so I think it is a good question that just was sort of saying, well, how our our knowledge is flawed, but God's is not. But here I have knowledge of the God. And I don't think Hussain addressed the question that if your knowledge is flawed, then, you know, when you said when you accept Islam, when you believe in the God, but you're relying on your flawed knowledge to know that the God is all of these things. So it's kind of Hussain's kind of going back to a presupposition or axiomatic kind of belief that, hey, if you believe God is all knowing, then he'll be all knowing. And that doesn't really work. We're basically asking if your knowledge is flawed, then how did you come about this knowledge that God is not flawed? You're just assuming he's not flawed. The context of the question is within the problem of evil. So I'm saying knowing, for example, consequences is flawed, knowing what is like how certain things in the grand scheme of things could be bad and evil is flawed. I'm not saying my idea of God is flawed. Does that make sense? And then the same thing with the attributes, like we're appealing to revelation. And we believe Muhammad s.a.w. and Islam is true because God exists. And, you know, when we think of the concept of God, this is the only true religion. Like there's a clear thought process. So and again, the context of this was only around problem of evil slash that kind of stuff. We can carry on, I think from there. That's that's great. And yeah, if anybody has any other questions for our speakers, definitely keep them coming in. We got a couple questions left. So thank you once again, Joshua Jamie for all the interaction in the live chat tonight. We appreciate your super chats. And on that note, Joshua Jamie strikes again asking who's saying what proof of physics and psychology shows that reality reality must make one happy to know it. Yeah, I guess that's an interesting question. But I would say it's kind of like absurd. No, so it's like, well, like if someone is insane, but they're, but they're happy, should we like try and cure their insanity? Well, like, yes, like being aligned with reality is a good thing, actually. So I guess that would kind of like, that's why we try and cure mental illness and people who are being maybe irrational or, you know, not conforming to reality, if you will. Would you like to expand on that? The Muslim apologists, because I will admit, Joshua Jamie is mostly coming out of Hussein here. So if you wanted to expand on that, you know, no, no, no, no, at this time, I can't keep the answer. Yeah. All right. Any response from the other side before we move on? All right. No, I don't think so. Let's see here. Shroud, Andy. Shrag, sorry, Andy. Thank you again for another super chat says, God, an omnipotent being creator of everything, the all knowing but provides zero proof of verifiability disbear around the world wars yet does nothing. What's the purpose to worship someone like that? I hope I put the emphasis on rate syllables there. And that's good enough. So again, this, this is quite funny because in my opening, I was talking about how like a lot of these are emotional arguments and how statistically atheists, the vast majority, maybe market industry are different. They point to the problem of evil. But that's basically just a rejection of God, because you don't like bad things like to memify it. And again, you're not you're not really like grasping in a way like the concept of God and like the fact that it's a test basically. So to summarize it really shortly, Muslim apologize, I'm sure has an idea too. Yeah. So like you said, it goes back, problem of evil in Islam, there's there's absolutely no problem at all. Okay. Because we work within the paradigm of Islam, which already pretty much laid out that life is a test. We are here only temporarily. And in the year after life is eternal. And therefore, whatever deeds or whatever actions that we do here now on earth, we will have a question effect in the year after, which is why I earlier I asked, I put to the question to our friends here, Dusty about what do they say about the afterlife? They don't believe that afterlife exists. But as a Muslim, I believe that whatever that afterlife does exist. And whatever I do here will have an effect in my head after. So I need to work within a paradigm of morality in order to achieve a better life in the year after. So this guy's my morality, this guy's my ethical principles. This makes me a better person. Yeah. All right, thoughts on the other side or we're done. Go ahead. Dusty. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Here, go ahead. Dusty. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, well, so when we're talking about the problem of evil, the problem of evil comes into play whenever we consider the all knowing aspect and the all good aspect of this supposed supreme deity. So mixed with his divine hiddenness or whatever you want to say, it becomes an issue if he does not show evidence for his existence to convince us and knows that we will question, like for instance, if God created me, God's going to know I'm a skeptic. He would know what evidence I would take. But if he doesn't provide this evidence and the alternative for me not believing is hell, like that's a problem. That is the problem of evil right there. I mean, it doesn't make sense for if God is going to be all knowing and all good, then it doesn't really make sense for him to hide from us all the time. If our souls are on the line, does that make sense? Hopefully, I articulated that somewhat clearly. Yeah, I think the problem was more around sort of these these bad things that happen. And if God has designated them as a test, and that is a good thing by the admission of Muslim Apologist and Hussein that it can work out to be a good thing, then why should we be attempting to stifle God in what he wants to do? Why should we make medicine because God has already determined who will live and who will die? Why do we attempt to subvert the test? Why do we attempt to cheat essentially, like by making medicine, by making solutions to these problems by, you know, when there's a volcano in New Zealand, why do we send in rescue people? Because if it is all a test to see how you cope with adversity, as well as the good things in life, then there is no reason to assist your fellow man. But if this is the only life that we have, then it is vitally important that we help each other. Because if there is no real objective good and evil, if just bad things happen, because that is the universe just being the universe, then we have to all band together to help one another get through this, not ignore each other's plights, because that's just a test that you're going through on your way to the perfect place. That's a way for answer. Yeah, so to push back a little bit, so I'll try and answer both of you guys. So for Mark's answer, so you're saying that there's no reason to stop these things, but there is actually, so in Islam, like it would be a good thing, right? So for example, like, it's not just a cop out to say like, oh, you see someone drowning while there, it was their destiny to drown like you shouldn't try and save them. No, the Muslim imperative is to do good actions as well, and to live a virtuous life. So like a virtuous person would try and attempt to save someone and do good. And there's a hadith about that. They say so, say there's a judgment day, and judgment day is about to start. And you're planting a plant, right? They say they directly answer your point of view. There's a hadith about it. And it says God states, continue planting that plant. Because it doesn't matter, even though the world's going to end, the point is you're doing a good action. And it's it's it doesn't the point is the action is good period. And then to answer destiny's question, or answer about it. As far as skepticism, I would say that atheism in its current form is like a very modern phenomenon. Basically, I would say that most of the modern human beings in existence aren't truly questioning life to a to a correct degree. So like in the state of nature, where you're constantly faced with death, you are constantly thinking about your life and your existence and the afterlife and things like this. And you're also pondering the the glory that is the world the world that is given to us. So when you're not questioning these things, you're not thinking about these things, and you're taking basically like the cushy modern existence, you know, you're not going to truly question, you're just going to be playing these word games and being hyper skeptical, if that makes sense. I mean, I'm sure you guys will disagree. But that's just my opinion on it. Can I add on to that? Go for it. Yeah, sure. So I think, Mark, I think of all due respect to you, I think you have mistaken the understanding of Islam with regards to the problem of evil in Islam. So it's not that let's say like you mentioned, if a volcano erupts and what are the people doing about it? It does not mean that Islam says, okay, just let the volcano erupt and kill everyone around it. And maybe there's a good thing out of it. No, that's not the point, you see. So the point is basically to strive for good. So the good here would be to actually assist in the rescue efforts. But let's say in the effort to rescue the people involved in the volcano eruptions, there were some people who actually perished, unfortunately, then we say to those people who may have perished in that incident, there may be a good thing that or something good will probably come out of their demise. So it's not that we're not trying to attempt to help them. It's just that in the process of rescue efforts, it's not 100% perfect. There may be incidences where none of them are rescued or maybe only a few are rescued. But if that happens, if that outcome does occur, then we say in the end, there may be something good out of it. So it's not nihilistic in that sense. So we always try, as Muslims, to see something good or something that positive, basically, that comes out of some problem that this is. Well, let's try to move on from there. Thank you so much to all of our speakers for answering the questions here. We got a couple more to go and then we'll wrap it up and we'll talk about our upcoming event here. It's going to, like I say, just be a little over two weeks away. Joshua Jamie asks again to Hussein, you are using necessary cause and necessary entity interchangeably. And it's obvious on purpose against the glaring fact that they are two different things. Why can't you be honest? Oh, that was a little shot at the end of there. But go ahead, Hussein. Yeah, I guess I don't get the question because to me they are interchangeable. So in a sense, when you say the first cause or the primal cause, you can say that is our Islamic definition of God. So if you want to call it first cause or we're saying the primordial mover or whatever you want to say, I mean, like to me, I'm just using different words to describe God. So Muslim apologists, did you want to add something to that? No, I agree. Okay, so entities is something that sort of just exists. So when you're talking about an entity, it can be literally anything. But I think what they're getting at is you're using cause and agent, like something with intelligence and will interchangeably, right? I think that's what they mean, that you're saying, hey, cause and God are the same thing. And that that is begging the question, like it's a case that, you know, you wonder how a boulder got down a hill. Yes, it may be that an agent or an entity, a person pushed that boulder. It may also be that it was just natural forces that got the boulder there. But you're using those two things interchangeably, which means that you're begging the question that the cause is actually a thinking and willful agent such as God. I think that's what they're getting at. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. But I'm saying is what I'm saying, or like if you look at listen to like William Lee and Craig, that he goes on to say, okay, so if there's a first cause, right? Okay, and you're saying, okay, the necessary being, right, this being or this cause has to be outside of time and space and the world and the materialism and stuff like that. You're getting, you're logically deducing these things because they have to be outside of the universe, basically. Does that make sense? And then when you get, when you, when you further analyze it, you are getting to the concept of a God. So, so I'm saying is like, you can call put whatever word is you want, but you are getting to the Islamic concept of God. Well, you're saying, Mark looks like he's got a thought, but did you want to I'll leave the final word. That's, that's fine. I don't know. That's all right. I just saw the face. So I thought maybe there was something going on behind the scenes there. So Robin Webster says membership chat. This is, she says team read or they say team read, not sure. So they're just saying that they're just coming out to give you support there, Mark. So thanks Robin. Thank you. ESA Kabir says a good job all peace and blessings to all my buds. Thank you, ESA. We super appreciate ESA here on modern day debate and me personally as well. I wasn't having a great evening the other night and had a great chat with ESA. I definitely was prompt to let them know that it was just what the doctor ordered. You know, I felt a lot better. ESA is a great listener, a great communicator. So yeah, appreciate you, buddy. Joshua Jamie says, once again, to you who's saying I'm sure anyone would have predicted we would be making tall buildings in the future. It's cool. Exactly. Yeah, he needs to answer the question. Who did? This is, it's just funny. This is my whole point. So when I say like, like, I want people to like reflect on all these things, like, and the culminate was the collection of all the everything we have available, right? And when we're not just saying it's just this one prediction, okay, we're saying there's like a book. It's literally about like 2000 or something predictions. I remember the exact number, but it's quite a lot. It was in the thousands. And the point is, is like, it's not just this one prediction. And then every time there's a prediction that comes up, well, the atheist person will be hyper skeptical. And all of a sudden, well, it's not that great, actually, you know, oh, this other one, it's not that great. Oh, this one's not that great. Well, like at that point, you're just proving in a way that you don't, it's, it's, you don't want to engage in a way. You're just saying like, it's not that great. But like, are you making these predictions? Like, are you making 2000 claims? And they're all like, or some large amount of claims, and they're all being proven true? Like the, and are you claiming to be a prophet of God? Like, did you, do you have all this recorded evidence of your actions? Like, there's a difference between you and a random person. Okay, one person making one claim, and it being correct. Yeah, I'm not going to say he's a prophet, but a person making all these claims, doing all these actions, the whole life of the prophet Muhammad, is that is the point. It's like, it's a, what's the word? I can't say it today for some reason, but sometimes I can come cumulative. Mark, call me out. Yeah. Cumulative. Thank you. Cumulative. Everybody all cumulative. Yeah, thank you. I, yeah, Jacques Leher to Issa. Did you want to carry on? Go ahead. Yeah, so it doesn't matter how many claims you make, they have to be specific, they have to be very, very accurate. It doesn't really matter. I just want to share my screen just for one second, and just share this. Is this, is this a tall building? That is a tall building. That is a tall building. Guess what? It was built in 593. Well, I mean, there isn't exactly a building in the sense of the prophecy that the project said. Yeah, I'll just, I'll just finish what I'm, what I'm saying, that you don't know, your interpretation is that tall building means this thing. And this is what we find a lot in prophecy, like Nostradamus. We find people who later on go back and instead of saying, Hey, here is the evidence. What can, what does the evidence lead to? Which is, we don't need to know what he meant by tall buildings. He could have meant a minaret and that isn't attached to another building. That's just a tall building, or it could have meant this or, you know, he could have guessed, we don't know. Instead of being able to go back and check that you get modern things and you say, Hey, this vague statement, that bits, because you want it to fit, it is confirmation bias. And this is where apologetics is exactly the opposite of scientific inquiry, because apologetics is having your conclusion and then fitting the evidence to the conclusion. What science does, and the science makes testable predictions by the way you're asking for predictions, science makes them all the time. I'll bring up the prediction of Tectolic in evolution. They knew where they would find this animal and what layer of the strata they would actually find it in. That's a really good prediction. Plus what it looked like, that's insanely good. Like it's not tall buildings, it will have these features and it will be found exactly here. Now, that procedure is using evidence and then following the evidence to where it leads, not apologetics, where you have the conclusion, you're fitting the evidence to your conclusion. Dusty, do you want to add anything? No, that was well said. When you read anything, you have to, basically what you're saying is that I'm going to be hyper skeptical and believe that, oh, these people are just reading into it. But then when you read other texts, you're not this hyper skeptical. So if I write something to you, or even when we're having a dialogue right now, Mark, there's some ability in language or basically you have to assume in a sense what I mean. So again, why are you, if you want to go follow down that train, why are you not questioning everything? You should just be a post-modernist and basically be like, who's that guy that, for some reason, white rhyming people love? Jordan Peterson. Well, what is God? What is this? What is that? Why are you doing that then? You can say that with anything then at that point. Because when we all look at it, the vast majority of people will say, oh, that is a true prophecy. You could believe it's not like a great thing, but it is a true prophecy to most the average person. Hey, I do have a quick question, Hussain, because you quoted the Hadiths a couple of times. Correct me if I'm wrong. We're talking like multiple thousands of Hadiths and was it an upstanding Muslim man of integrity? Those are the ones that they chose. No, women had Hadiths too. So like Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, also delivered a lot of Hadiths. But basically, there's a science of Hadith and it follows like mass translation. So basically, they would gather all the Muslims within the first generation, for example, and they confirm like, oh, did the Prophet, peace be upon him, say this? And then, for example, if like all the Suhaba, like the biggest companions all agreed that he said that, then that's a consensus that he said that because they're all there. But I can appreciate, oh, go ahead, see, keep going. No, no, no, even the Quran has that too. So for example, like people who are, what's the word? Hafiz. Yeah, Hafiz. They have a certificate and they can directly trace where they've learned their Quran from all the way back to Muhammad. So it means they've memorized the Quran and they were taught the Quran by their teacher and their teacher and their teacher and their teacher. So there's a record of all this. But that, I guess that that was one of my concerns is I can appreciate oral tradition. But, you know, when you're talking about manuscripts that were compiled, like upwards of two centuries after the Prophet existed, like some of the we didn't know it's within the first century, it was within the first century. Yeah, and supposedly they found manuscripts of the Quran that is dated to Muhammad's lifetime. It's supposedly in I think it's a museum or something. Bami Ham. Bami Ham, every ministry. Yeah, yeah. All right. What about, oh, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. What about the prophecies that didn't come true? Like, for instance, that the Antichrist would appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople? Yeah, was Islam a end of the world belief system? It was. No, he said no one knows the hour. So there's Hadiths that show that Muhammad peace be upon him didn't know the hour. So for example, he knew signs, certain signs of the day of judgment. And there was in his lifetime certain things that could have possibly matched the hour. And he said basically that he doesn't know. And when they investigated it, they confirmed that it's not the hour. So I'm not sure about that one where they said, like, I've never heard that one to be honest, Mark. Yeah, I haven't heard of that. It is Sonan Abu Dawood book 37 number 4281. And what was it, sir? What? Sonan Abu Dawood. I can I can put it in chat if you want. Yeah. Sonan Abu Dawood. Sorry. What book was it? Book 37 number 4281. Oh, you put it in the chat there. Sonan Abu Dawood. I don't want to say. Yeah, I'm terribly sorry. My Arabic is terrible. Wait, wait, wait, do you have like a better this just is a person. This is just a person committing a punishment. Yeah, do you have like an exact youth number or anything like that? Yeah. Yeah. Because this hadith here says about a prescribed punishment for men. It has nothing to do with the hour. I put the thing in chat. I'm not sure why. Oh, 4281. Okay. Yeah, 4281. Yeah. It doesn't even give a grade on this. And I can't even find anything on that. Give you guys a chance to check that out. Smash that like button if you haven't already. Well, everybody has a moment to look up. Well, what we're discussing right now, which is we're looking up a verse. So don't mind us, everybody. We're going to take a moment. Is it the one that said the beings would survive at the end of 100 years? No. Okay. I'm just having a little look over what I can find. Can you probably share it on the screen because I couldn't. I couldn't. I don't think I found it hard because I don't think I found it hard enough that you would swim to it. It says something entirely different. Oops, I might have shared the wrong screen. Oh, no, I've got the right one. So I'll just highlight. The prophet, peace be upon them said the state flourishing that of Jerusalem will be when Yisraib is in Eulans and the ruined state of Yisraib will be that when the great wall comes the outbreak of the great wall be at the contest conquest of Chakrotsin and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dijal or the Antichrist comes force. He the prophet struck his thine shoulder with his hand and said this is as true as you are here or you are sitting. Yeah. So what I'm reading is there's like a testier on it and it's basically saying that this hasn't happened yet because this is regarding the end times and it's saying that there'll be there's another hadith that indicates so that the Roman army half the Al-Roman ally, the Roman army, basically the West will ally with the Muslim world and then the common enemy will be the Eastern army of the Rome. So basically it's talking about the end times and like a global conflict between East and West which hasn't happened yet. Also this hadith says that the Yathri would be in ruin. So this is different to Medina. So Medina is not in ruin. So no, it's not happening yet. Yeah. All right. I think we can carry on from there if you want to stop the screen share but do appreciate that and going down the rabbit hole a little bit on that one. So definitely we appreciate our panel for you know entertaining that in an extra sense. So Joshua Jamie asks again, I asked you how you know God is all good if only he knows what is good and you respond with because he is all wise. Mark is right. You didn't answer. Okay. So again, this is like a fallacy. We're not saying that God is just one attribute. So even Dusty admitted that this is more of a problem for Christians who describe God as only all loving and all merciful or whatever. We're like God is also justice. God is also compassion. God is also wisdom. God has 99 attributes that we know of. There could be even more within the Islamic paradigm. So again, this isn't more of a problem within Christianity and other religions versus Islam. So we're not saying that God is just love. God is just mercy. God is just compassion. All right. What was the We can carry on. But did you have a question? Sorry. Who's saying Oh, no, I thought I know Muslim apologize when I say something. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. If you had anything to add there, I'm not nothing much to add on. Yeah. Sorry. All right. Let's carry on then. Don Kedik says I love modern day debate. Well, just a shout out to and a reminder of mega mind. We love you to random citizen. All right. I had to watch that with the kids the other day. So it's actually good. It's definitely watchable. If you have to watch something, it's not too bad, right? No, I mean, yeah, if you got to watch something with your kids, it's definitely pretty good. But yeah, we love you to random citizen. Let's carry on. Chirag ND says if striving for good is the objective, why does it matter which religion you belong to? Why Islam? All religions strive for good. Yeah, I mean, that's not something I would disagree with. I mean, in some religions, well, I mean, there's some like pagan religions, which obviously I wouldn't say strives for good when they talk about like sacrifice. I mean, the the pagans before Muhammad, Sahel, or Salem thought it was okay to sacrifice people. Amazon tribes sacrifice children. I mean, there's plenty of pagan religions which are inherently like demonic, actually, they aren't striving for good. So that would definitely like go against what they think. And then obviously, like my problem with other say, quote unquote, beliefs that claim to be monotheistic is I'm arguing that they're not actually monotheistic, that like Judaism and Christianity aren't monotheistic. I mean, you're talking about three, three persons in one and all this stuff that doesn't make sense and that God is all merciful, but somehow needs to sacrifice his only son. But by the way, there's a contradiction in the Bible because they say that there's other begotten sons. But then it says that it is the he's the only begotten son. I mean, like that clearly falls on its face. Judaism says that, you know, all God is the Creator. But then actually, like you can trick God by like throwing a chicken around and putting your sins in a chicken, they can either supposed to sacrifice on the Sabbath, but they can put around Israel and New York like a rope and like deceive God somehow. And like also God again only cares about Jewish people and like under Talmudic Judaism, like we have no souls, not all Jews believe this, by the way. I'm just saying like these things don't and you can wrestle against God and beat God. You can debate God and beat God. I mean, that's not God. Like this isn't God. Gotcha. Can I add on to that? Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So I guess this goes back to the definition of good. Is child sacrifice good? That's the question because there are some pagan mystic religions in the past who found child sacrifice. So I guess it goes back to where what or what is the meaning of good and where does it come from? The source of of the justification of good. Any thoughts on the other side? No, all right. Let me get back into our super chats here. I'm just sharing this link out and getting ready to talk about like I say we have a live event coming up here in Texas. So I'm going to talk about that a little bit after the stream. So everybody hang out. Chirag ND says if striving for good is the objective. Oh, sorry. We already read that one, but he did ask another one. Chirag ND asks Paul the octopus got 12 at a 14 predictions right 85% accuracy. Maybe that's the gospel of Paul could be a new religion. 85% accuracy is not convincing enough. He has to be 100%. Any thoughts from the rest of our panel? No, all right. Sorry, I missed that. Sorry, I was just writing something. I missed that. What was it? He's saying that one of the some guy got 85% predictions right out of it. He was actually an octopus. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I thought he said that. I thought he said Paul. Yeah, so it's kind of the whole idea is that unlikely things can happen, right? Like you can ascribe meaning to these things. It's called synchronicity. Basically, there was a girl in London who let a balloon go with their name on a red balloon and it actually landed in the yard of someone with exactly the same name and was the same age kind of thing. This is just pure random charts. It is deterministic because it's just obeying laws of physics, but we ascribe meaning to these probabilities that may be higher than normal. An octopus could possibly get 85% accuracy on predictions just through sheer charts. So is that balloon example like that when it be considered like miraculous to you? Not in like the prophetic tradition, but in like the probability of that happening is really statistically low. So it's like almost miraculous, right? You don't think that's miraculous? No, I don't think it's miraculous. I think it's highly improbable, right? That's what I would use. I term it highly improbable, but highly improbable things have actually happened. Like, for instance, a game has been played with a perfect hand in bridge, right? The entire set to lay down the entire hand in bridge, the perfect hand. The chances of that makes it almost impossible to happen. It shouldn't have happened because we have not played enough hands of bridge to make it so, but it did happen. Yeah. Have you guys ever seen the show? I think it's called I Survived. Have you guys ever seen that? No, but that probably sounds like an interesting watch. Yeah, it's definitely an interesting watch and it's pretty much story after story of these people that got so close to death and like for all intents and purposes should have died, but then by some, you know, what some people would call miraculous. Yeah, they were able to pull through it. We would be quick to say, you know, oh, that's a miracle, but still at the end of the day, it happened in the natural world. There's a natural reason for it. You know, we don't have a reason to appeal to the supernatural until it proves itself, but yeah. So, for example, I heard a story of like my friend, he said his friend was lost in the forest, but for some reason he intuitively knew to go a certain direction, right? And then he went that direction and he found his friend. How do you describe that under a materialist or natural world? It's just happened chance, right? Is that what you're going to say? Basically? Well, I mean, he was, wait, tell me the story again. Sorry. So basically like a guy that I know, he was lost in the forest with his friends or his friends got lost, excuse me. And then he just intuitively for some reason, like he didn't really contemplate this. He just was like, I need to go this way basically, right? That's how he describes it. And then he went that way and they all found his friend and like brought him back to camp kind of thing. So like, what explains those like, that's just synchronicity or what is it? What did Mark say? Synchronicity. Yeah, synchronicity. And then like, and what just, what explains synchronicity? I mean, I'm sorry, I see nothing special about that. I mean, they're both in the woods, they're both trying to find each other, you know, I mean, eventually, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, interesting story for sure, but I don't see it being miraculous. Okay. How many people are being lost in the woods and not found somebody a lot? You know, we can't just go, well, this one instance happened to work out. So that must be a miracle. Why can't it just be charged? So maybe, maybe he intuitively knew where to go. Like, like I said, intuition is good for making snap decisions. And you, but you're not usually aware of what it is that you're doing when you're employing intuition, you're just going with gut feelings. And you can be right. You can be right. But it's not a good way to find out if you are right. It's not reliable. Like using rationality is reliable. It will get you the best answer because it's a reliable way to find the truth. Intuition can be right. I can think, oh, you know, Ryan's a horrible person just on intuition, right? Just to throw Ryan back under the bus. Yeah, totally. And you know, I could be absolutely right about that. But that's not a good way to evaluate whether that is true or not. What I should do is, you know, talk to Ryan and, you know, get to know him and then evaluate rationally whether he is a good person or not. Interesting. Okay. I'll have to look into that, Mark, later, the synchronicity and how that would be. Synchronicity. Synchronize. In ATC's worldview, how do they explain that? I want to look that up. Well, it's random events lining up. So one looks related to another, basically. They synchronize. But these random events, there's no real bigger cause behind it all. They're just events that happen to have lined up. I think there's probably an aspect of patternicity as well there too, right, Mark? Like, we're pre-programmed to look for these things. So then we noticed them more. Who did the programming, Dusty? Oh boy, that's a loaded question. Evolution did the programming. Evolution did. Let us carry on. I have a couple of fun things to go over. So during the course of our debate, I had a couple polls that we had put up. So don't mind this. This is just the live audience that had tuned in for the debate and participated in the polls and the percentages that we have going forward. So is Islam true? It was our first poll. 76% voted no. 12% said I'm here to figure it out. And 11% said yes. So that was 201 votes at that time. I had a second poll that we put up, which was, who is your favorite speaker on our panel tonight? We had 12% for Dusty, 7% for the Muslim Apologist, 11% for Hussein, and Mark Reid, 68% tuned in here at 148 votes. So, you know, make that what you will. Thank you so much. Mark won. Mark won my envelope. Look, I don't like people saying you won a debate or whatever. Like people, look, everybody wins if we give ideas and put ideas up against one another and discuss things and have debates. You know, everybody wins. And like I said, this is just for fun. These are the people that were hanging out at the time that participate in these types of polls. So, you know, don't take this to heart anybody. I appreciate it. But winning a popularity contest doesn't mean you're right. Very great. And we had a last one, which was, did you hit the like button, which is yes. Now this, I'm basically saying, no, I had to hit this. What's next? Most people voted for that. You know, frustrated that we've had so many polls. The 30% said I won't, I'm too busy slurping soy. 19 said, no, I will after this. And the other 4% said, I cap, I will ask a super chat. So thank you to everybody who asked super chats. We got two more to go. Those polls are always fun. And you know, we will, I'll maybe ask another poll when we go over our events. So Squid Superhunk asks, the plural of mundane prediction isn't prophecy. It seems like they're coming right at you. So any thoughts on that? Hussain Muslim Apologist? Yeah, again, it just goes back to the chronic quote where basically their heart is blind to faith. So they, if you want to basically be a robot and like diminish like the miraculous list of life, the miraculous that we're alive, the fact that there's like all this beauty in the world, the fact that, you know, all these prophets came throughout history where they've taught the same message, the fact that, you know, all human beings for the most part, it appears into intuitively believe in a God and a creator. If you want to ignore all this mountain of evidence and just say, yep, it's a random chance, we're just meaningless spaced dust that happened to evolve. And everything's deterministic, but somehow, you know, these religious people actually are the ones with bad morals, yada, yada, yada. Yeah, like, I don't, I don't even want what you want from me then. So you just don't want to believe and it's fine. Go do whatever you want. All right. Yeah, so, okay, can I add to that? Oh, sure. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, so when we say prophecies, we don't mean a mundane, you know, series of events like, okay, tomorrow morning, I'm going to have coffee. And then when I have my coffee, I'm going to drive to work. And then at work, I'm going to do, you know, task A to task C. And then in the evening, I'm going to come back and sleep. So when we say prophecy, yes, to be something world shaking, something significant that actually affects the community and life in general. So it's not just a matter of prediction, random prediction, like who's going to win, you know, the football match tomorrow between Liverpool and Alta Lanza, for example. Oh, sorry, I think that's my son playing. He's on his PlayStation. So yeah, so yeah, so anyway, so yeah, so there's actually a whole, I actually have a whole book of of Hadif, which lists out the prophecies of the prophet and they are graded and a large majority of them as she comes to pass. Yeah, I believe that as a Muslim, I believe that. There's stuff like usury will be everywhere. You'll be affected by its dust, like it predicts basically like market like the current economy, like the fiat system, like it predicts like there's so many things that are predicted. And to be like, yeah, it's just all mundane stuff, like, like the point is, is like you're get your there's so many prophecies and they're all true. So like the, to not believe like these are clear signs and the Quran talks about that, like we have you not seen like the clear signs of God basically. So all right, let's carry on and I smile. I do have something to add. It's been brought to my attention since we are discussing rally first off. I don't know what heart is blind to faith means my heart blood plumps blood around my body. That's what it does. It's not something special. So unless you're using as a metaphor for my mind, I don't know what you're talking about meaningless space dust, we've got married meaningful lives that doesn't just because the constituted parts were spaced us doesn't mean we're not meaningful. But when they're talking about morality, someone's actually in my, my chat is brought to my attention. Muslim apologists that you have a criminal record based around children abuse of children. Is that true? No, I don't. No, I don't. It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie that has been going around since my arrest in 2024. It's an alleged crime, but he has already been dropped and there's no case against me. I was never charged caught. Yeah, let's just not even touch that with a 10 foot pole. No. So let us carry on. We got one more chat. Shane the pain and we're going to try to get as much out of this as we can. So if cancer for children is good and just a test, when if the child dies would death be the reward? I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time? So we have this one here. Shane the pain says if so if cancer for children is good and just a test, when and if the child dies would death be the reward? Yeah, so I mentioned that. So like when children die, they're essentially considered martyrs. They go essentially straight to heaven. So it is in a way it can be seen as a mercy to them. So like within the Islamic paradigm. So that's why you see people in Palestine like still faithful to God and they've repeatedly you can watch videos of them saying like my son or daughter was martyred and I will join them in heaven. We'll never leave this land. Things like that. They're talking about that. So like it's literally answered on the daily. He just turned on the news. Yes, so can I add on to that? Sure thing. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, so it's about it's about expectations of the year after justice in life and trials and tribulations and how we look at it positively. Which again, I need to point out, I don't see this in Buddhism. So yeah, I think it's some kind of justice and we always we always start to look at the good side of things. Okay, this actually reminds me of the what was the name of the British comedy truth. You know that life is always on the good side of life. I don't know the name of the song. Yeah. It is hard to make you out because there's a lot of noise in the background. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask my son to mute this. It's all good. I understand the pain. I've got two young ones and the amount of times that I'm like. So yeah, yeah. Sorry. I remember the least. There's always on the good side of life. So yeah, Brian, Brian, I don't remember the name of the film. Yeah, that's right. So that is how actually Islam taught us. You know the song at the end of it. So yeah, so I always look at this positively and yeah, Islam teaches us to look at it positively and like the trials and sufferings of the children in Palestine. I think several days ago, a family of a Palestinian politician were murdered and what did the politician say in response? He said they are fine. They are in Jannah now and this is a test for us. So this is how we look at things or problems that exist in our lives. All right. And also Shane, the pain carried on to say great debate, great job to all four debaters. Keep up the stellar moderation, Ryan. Thank you, Shane, the pain for your Super Chat. We appreciate you. Joshua Jamie with our last Super Chat. This is going to be the last one of the night, everybody. So if you put one in and I don't read it, I'm sorry. Just stop typing now. The fact that it happened on its own is far more profound than a God did it. Any thoughts on the panel? I think that's for us. Yeah, I'm still waiting for the proof. I mean, I'm going to just take the skeptical approach. I'm waiting for the proof that it just happened on its own. That's something ever can just happen on its own. Everything we see points to a cause and effect. So still waiting, guys. Maybe the ball should be on Atheist's court to just prove that something could just happen on its own. Well, I mean, a lot of things happen on their own. There's no person rolling a boulder down the hill. Sometimes the physics that determines it to happen, I don't know what happened on its own even means because there's always a causal chain that we're looking at. And you're saying, hey, there's no causal change for God. It's a necessary state of being. That could just be the universe that's a necessary state of being. It's easily counted. But this whole idea that, yeah, Dusty, do you want to chime in here? Oh, boy. I mean, not really. I don't care to take upon the burden of proof of that. I mean, I'm not an astrophysicist. So I have no reason to doubt what they propose when it comes to the nature of the cosmos. And many of them certainly don't postulate God. Again, I think it's we're hasty to jump to certain conclusions. And you say, you know, I haven't seen the evidence of anything coming from nothing. Okay, well, again, we still haven't seen any evidence of God. So until someone can postulate that, I will rely on the scientific method for for my up. Dusty, that's, that's evident. That is evidence. Like when you say, okay, and in no, so, okay, for example, like, do you believe in the, the, the gravity, gravity, right? So I've never seen gravity work. So therefore, I believe gravity works. Or it's true. Does that make sense? Right. You don't question gravity testable question gravity. I've never seen something come from nothing. And therefore, things have to have creators. So therefore, God exists. It's the same thought process. I'm being perfectly rational. I think you guys are being irrational. Does that make sense? When have we seen a mind without a brain? Okay. When have we seen a mind without a brain? Yeah, but you're, you're taking the thing that you're making the conclusion of, you know, you're basically saying, Hey, we've never seen gravity, which we have, we can demonstrate gravity really easily here. I just demonstrated gravity. But we've also never seen a mind without, like a disembodied mind without a brain, a physical brain of some sort, even though we've seen billions of minds. And as those, those brains get more complex, the minds get more complex. And you're claiming there is a infinitely complex mind with no brain. So if you're using your own standard of logic, if you've never, if you can't produce another mind without a brain, then there's no reason to think that God exists either. Yeah, I guess I'm confused as to why that's not a God of the gaps argument. Like I, you know, you look at it and you're saying, you know, God, this has to be a God. Like I just, I just don't see, I just don't see that. Because I'm not just saying it's individually that like I've, I've tried to say like a couple, basically like, and I don't want to go too deep into it, but basically I'm saying that it's not, it's like prophecy. It's the fact that humans intuitively believe this. It's the fact that revelation talks about the Quran, which is, we believe is from God talks about how human beings they may believe in God. We have studies proving this like, or supernatural, whatever, if Mark wants to disagree and it doesn't count towards a God. But we're saying like, okay, it counts to supernatural, which is a God, right? We're saying that rationally, that you can, you can have arguments for God. And so I'm saying it's all these things combined. It's not just a God of the gaps. Like I'm not, it would be a straw man of my position to say, Oh, I don't know God. It's, it's, it's all these things combined that point me towards God. All right, well, I think it's more. Okay, sorry. I was going to say, I think it would be a good idea to move into one minute closers if, if Hussein you're still in a hurry. I've been smiling from time to time because you said you were in a hurry, but you, yeah, I know, I know. It's just, it's been fun. But yeah, yeah, let me. No worries. Here, we're just going to, we're going to turn it over to our screen share just because some things changed. So I'm going to fix that up. No worries, everybody. And what I'm going to do is we're going to go around our panel and do one minute closers to get our speakers moved out. And then we're going to talk about our upcoming live event in Texas. It's going to be a lot of fun. So let's see. First on the panel, I'd say, yeah, we go in reverse order. That's the way I always do. It drives everybody not so dusty one minute on the floor. It's all yours. Yeah. So first of all, again, thank you to everybody that was here this evening to take part in this discussion. This is again, this was my first time being on the channel and taking part. So I've seen a lot of conversations, especially on this topic, very heated very quickly. And I think that everybody for the most part kept a pretty good level head and was able to have a civil discussion. And honestly, when we're talking about these topics, like that's what's most important. You know, like as I said before, there's 8 billion people on the planet and 1.7 of them believe the same way that Hussain and the Muslim apologists do. So it's really important that if it's not true, we continue to question. And I don't mean that just about you guys either. I mean, not about all religion. Like you're right, this is a long held belief of mankind, but is it a rational belief of mankind? That is one thing that we won't get to until we continue to question. Yeah, again, I believe I agree with you. I think if you step outside of the dogmatic beliefs and you look at the belief in the divine as a whole, you can see that general process and how we got to where we are today. Yeah, I really think that it's a byproduct of mankind's developing psyche at a time whenever humans had abundance of creativity but lacked the chemical understanding of the world around them. But thank you for everybody for letting me be here. No worries. Well, we appreciate you and that was great. And we're going to hand it over to you, Mark, for your one minute closing. Thank you so much and thank you for moderating. I want to give a big thank you to my partner. I don't think I thanked in the introduction, but fantastic debate there, Dusty. Really good to see. Appreciate it. So yeah, thanks to my interlocutors again for participating in this debate. And I do apologize for some apologies. I was given some information. It may have been wrong. So I really do apologize for if I misconstrued that it was of concern to me. But you know, I trust that you didn't correct me. Yeah, my apologies. Okay. Okay. So really what we're looking for is reliable ways to tell whether something is true or not. What we're talking about is methodology. How do we tell if something is true? Now, the problem here is where we usually lean a lot on this falsability criteria. We usually have a methodology of investigation testing, things like that. The problem with Islam is it cuts you off from doing any of that. It basically says, hey, there are these arguments we have, and there's these feelings we have, and there's these things that we want to be true. And that's enough for sort of believing it, but it's not. They haven't really addressed any of the problems and they haven't really given any evidence whatsoever that is reliable and rigorous that we can investigate. Thank you. No worries. Well, thank you. And we're going to hand it over to Muslim Apologist one minute on the floor. They just went off camera. Muslim Apologist, are you there? Yeah, I'm still here. All right, excellent. One minute on the floor for you. Yeah. So, yeah, thank you everyone for coming here. Thank you especially to my friend who said who I think did most of the talking. I was just basically in the shadows. I mean, there wasn't much to say about it, but it was honestly speaking, I don't really feel into Kala more philosophically. I'm more into real life incidences or real life experiences that we can relate to. So, yeah, anyways, my conclusion is that I guess everything that we have discussed here actually goes back to the issue of the existence of God. And if this can actually be conclusively proven and I know for a fact that this will always be a contentious topic. But if everyone agrees, if everyone could actually agree that God exists, then everything else will fall into place and we could actually go into the other aspects of what we actually discussed. Let's just finish it. All right. Well, thank you so much, Muslim Apologist, for being here. And Hussein, over to you last minute on the floor. Yeah, so I think what, thank you for everyone here, by the way, and thank you for hosting it. I think that what I've tried to do at least is provide a combination of various topics to show basically Islam is not only in line with reason. We believe in the necessary being our religion is most conducive to what we philosophically describe as the necessary being. It's just also innately in tune with humanity's fitra or pre innate disposition. So I think that Islam is the truth because of those things. And I did believe I tried to show that atheism actually is the antithesis to being human in a sense. It is like a rejection of being human and because the conclusions that a lot of atheists and obviously again, most of them aren't going to, Dusty and Mark made it disagree with this, but we perceive inherently that we have free that we have morality that we make choices and that our life has meaning and purpose. And most people perceive and understand innately that there's a God and atheists are rejecting this and therefore I believe are not in tune with humanity at all. So. All right. Well, thanks to everybody on our panel. Big round of virtual applause to everybody who participated in the discussion tonight. We appreciate also you in the live chat. So thank you to all of you as well for all your engagements and also to our moderators who keep our live chat friendly. Mark Reed Dusty, the Muslim Apologist who's saying we'll see you again on modern day debate. I'm going to get our speakers moved on out and then I'm going to come back and we're going to talk about our upcoming event. So stay tuned everybody and I will be right back. Thank you again. I just want to mention one thing. There's an after show on my channel after if you want to keep the discussion going. Can I join? Sure, everyone's welcome. Sorry, what did you say? Oh, I just meant send me the link to that. Oh, it's in the chat. It's in the chat. It's in the chat. I'll relink it right now. I'm going to link up. Yeah, for sure. If you want to send me your link as well, Mark, if everybody's going to be hanging out over there, then we can also put that into our store, but he gets linked over there after I'm done making the announcements. So thank you again, everybody and we'll be right back. Into a space where they can eat comfortably and then they're going to be having their own aftershows and it's going to be a lot of fun. I'm sure so make sure that you tune in and check those out. In the meantime, we've gotten some great news that we're going to be participating with a live event that is coming up here in Texas. It's going to be on April 27th and that is going to be a Saturday. So hopefully lots of you are available to tune in here at Modern Day Debate for that live event. But if you are in the area, we have tickets available. They're 20% off when you use our promo code MDD, of course, stands for Modern Day Debate. But yes, MDD gets you 20% off on whatever ticket choice you choose. So if you're going to be in well, let's just check it out. We'll go through here. I pulled some things up earlier. There we go. So let's just pull it on over and I'm just going to share my other screen here like this. Perfect. Booyah. Easy peasy. So I'm going to look over here. So as you can see, we got this one here. It's going to be at the Vulcan Gas Company 418E6 Street, Austin, Texas. So if you're in the area and you are able to get there on that day, there's going to be all these events here. So I'm just going to read them off the list. I was checking them out while the debate was happening, but I of course can't remember off my heart. So if you're listening on podcast, you'll be able to hear this. So from 520 to 540, there's going to be live music from Crossbuckers with Ian Crossland and Toby Turner. My apologies in advance if I announce any of this wrong. At 540, there's going to be a welcome announcement from Shane Cashman followed by 545 from Paul Stone. At 6 o'clock PM, we're going to hear from the Drinking Bros podcast. I'd love to pour a pint with somebody from a podcast called the Drinking Bros podcast. Come on now. That'd be fun. I actually have not checked this out. So you know, if you're in the live chat, I'm not sure what these folks are associated with. I have to admit so. But honestly, that just sounds fun. So yeah, we got Dray de Mattio, Don Holloway, Ross Patterson and Shane Cashman who are participating with the Drinking Bros podcast. So that's going to be part of the live event there. I'll just cinch that up a little bit. Let's see here down 7 o'clock PM. Conspiracy theories are fun. Alright, we're getting some familiar names here. We got Stephen Destiny, Bonnell, and Jimmy Dore. Alec Stein is going to be coming out for that one. Ian Crossland, Luke Rudolski, and Bill Autman. And if I didn't mention earlier, if you forgot, James is going to be participating as a production in getting this casted to Modern Day Debate live so that you all can participate and watch these debates happening as they're going on. And we participate all your support in getting these functions happening. And a big shout out to James, of course, for getting this. We got what 17 days odd to go. Oh no, the day has crossed over for me. So 16 days for me. I'm in Nova Scotia. So you know, just a little bit ahead of everybody. 8pm. We got is America becoming a communist country? And participants are going to be Libby Emmons, Lauren Chen, Joe Allen, Tiffany Justice, Toxas Lindsay, Craig Pasta, I'm sorry, Craig Pasta, Jardula, I'm sorry, I totally messed it up. So Texas Lindsay and then Craig Pasta, Jardula. I missed the comma there. No worries, everybody. So hopefully you're following along. Let me know. I'm going to put up a last poll for the few people that are hanging out here. Appreciate you guys. Let's see. There it is. I'd saved this. This is the last poll that I'm going to put up. So did you check out our live event yet? Are you following along? Are you booked up? Are you able to make it? You know, let us know in the live chat. We really appreciate you know, figuring out what's going on. I did check out, by the way, what the parking situation is because that could be important to some people. So there's not available parking at the venue per se, but they do have VIP parking. So you might want to look into that as you're booking your tickets. So when I scroll down here, let's see. Actually, no, that's not about the parking. I looked into that separately. The other part was about the seating. So you can get seating. You just want to make sure that you get there early. As for parking, there is supposedly VIP parking behind, but I'm sure that'll be just for the guests. So you're going to want to make sure that you're staying in a place where you can catch a cab or, well, let's just see what else do they recommend here. A cab, a rideshare, drop-off pickup, pickup location. So they want that at the corner of Ninth and Red River. So look at that. See, I've got everything ready. Just been going at it, right? So I got the Google Maps here, but yeah, this is where it is, the Vulcan Gas Company. So here we can have fun with our Google Maps here. Give us the Street View. There we go. So this is Sixth Street. No, no, I don't want to move it. Oh, we're right on the car that does the biz. And let's see, there's pizzeria. It should be like a graded place. Ah, I lost it. Darn. See, I clicked on my own screen. Bijou. Ah, I can't find it. I had it up earlier, everybody. My apologies. But either way, let's carry on with the events that we're going to be hosting here. So at 9 o'clock, the election integrity debate. Stephen, Destiny Bennell, Hannah Claire, Brimlow, Ashon Fitzgerald, Kerry Smith, and then Craig Pasta. Jardula are going to be debating the election integrity debate. So that's going to be a lot of fun, I think, to be able to host here on Modern Databate and reshare. And then for a little bit of reprieve, a little bit of let's just relax and exhale for a few minutes here. We have stand-up comedy from Loren Chen. And also that's going to be a 15 to 20 minute set. It looks like because at 10 20, we have stand-up comedy from Jimmy Dore. I'm not sure how long that's going to be going on for, but make sure you book your tickets. So let's see here, we got a couple other things. 5 p.m., we're going to have the doors open and then the show starts. So once again, based on the seating situation, I'd recommend getting there early if you want to get seating. No backpacks or other large bags allowed in the venue, no animals allowed in the venue, no weapons allowed in the venue, and also have fun. It's mandatory. If you don't have fun, we'll then get the... See, I got my parental filter on. See, that's great. So right there, that's where you're going to want to apply your promo code. So you just click in there and hit MDD, and then fill out the rest of the information here, and you can get text updates and all that stuff, text my mobile tickets. I won't be able to make it unfortunately, but I'll be holding down the fort here in the meantime everybody. So yeah, this is a downtown Austin, Texas club. There was another part that I had seen here that I thought might be important. Oh yeah, I guess if you just want to get like really freaking wasted, you know, you can only buy two drinks per individual at the point of purchase. So I mean, you know, make sure you got more than one person there that's gonna be purchasing drinks. That's not important. Well, let's see. Yeah, I think that's about it. Honestly, I think we'll close it down, and hopefully whoever can make it will see you there, and whoever's going to be hanging out here at Modern Day Debate will also see you. So let us know in the live chat where you're hanging out, where you're going to be when this live event is happening. If you're going to be in Texas, James is going to be helping out at the event live, and he's going to be recording it there so we can hang out here at Modern Day Debate and see that happening. So make sure that you hit the notification bell for those upcoming events. It's only going to be, like I say, a little over two weeks where this is going to be happening. So a little short notice, but we appreciate everybody who hangs out in the live chat, supports the channel, participates in the super chats, and we will see you next time for more juicy debates. In the meantime, cheers. Have a great night, everyone.