Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not Islam is true and we are starting right now with Nadir's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Nadir. The floor is all yours. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Matt, for agreeing to debate this. I didn't think you were actually going to. Most atheists now are actually running away from this topic because there is something about the science of the Quran which proves it to be true that they're actually running away from. Arun Ra, but thank you for accepting that. So what makes Islam true? One of the main reasons is the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran and we'll get into that. But before I do that, I'm just going to share my desktop. I want to talk about some of the great benefits Islam has provided to humanity and the question which that raises is, wait a second, how is a one man in the desert in the seventh century is doing all of this? For example, we can see, can you guys see my screen there? Yep. Okay, wonderful. So if you look over here, Islam started a great scientific revolution. This is Prophet Muhammad who brought Islam and I'm just going to read to you a very nice comment from the, I'm sorry, yeah, from the reference that I have over it's from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. So I'm going to go rip through this very quickly because I got a lot of stuff. So what I'll ask for you guys to do is just hit pause on your YouTube to get all my references over here. This is what they call it the golden age of Islam, which they say is a flowering of knowledge and intellect and intellect that spread throughout the Europe and the great influence of both medieval and the practice of education with Prophet Muhammad who sparked this great scientific benefit for all of humanity. So let us look at another reason. What are some of the other benefits that Islam has provided to humanity? Let me lower this a little bit. I think it's probably too big for you. Okay, this is much better. All right. Today, there were actually there was a study done where they say Muslims. This is a daily mail article over here. It says Muslims have the highest level of satisfaction. Let's read the actual study from the from the American Psychological Association over here. It says over here. Muslims has on this when they did this research, they found that Muslims have the highest level scores, while atheists had the lowest in this concept of the sense of what is called the oneness, oneness with with the world and which brings about happiness and our eighth unit, our atheist buddies have scored lowest. And this is what you're going to find. What did atheism bring for us? You know, you're going to find nothing. So so not only did this start a great scientific revolution, but but we see here, according to the study over here, that they have the Muslims have the highest level of satisfaction, that they have a feeling of this oneness that Trump's Christian Buddhists and Yogis, the study suggests. Let us look at another reason over here. And that Muslims are also the most likely to be willing to be to be charitable, the most likely to volunteer according to the following study, which you see over here on your screen. And then finally, and I think this is the most important, Islam is a powerful rehabilitating force in the prisons. Millions and millions of people have been rehabilitated. Now, this is based on the research to see on the article with the article from the NDPI, which you see on your screen over here. I'm just going to read through this very quickly. Our research shows that that Muslim prisoners are more likely to choose a practice of Islam for reasons of piety, emotional coping, and good company. These largely sincere motives for choosing to follow Islam impacts significantly and positive knock on way on prisoners attitudes for rehabilitation in terms of reconnection with work, education, and intentions to avoid future crimes. So I don't think there's any exaggeration to say millions of people in the prison systems have changed their lives and have become positive members. Those are people who are prevented, which Islam has prevented from breaking into your homes, murdering people on the streets and all the other crimes that we see today. So what has it and atheism has produced nothing for you. There's no way you'll be able, Matt is even going to be able to compete with the good which Islam has brought to humanity. But anyway, let's get to the main issue tonight. And that is the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran. But before I begin, I will also extend a challenge. I'll extend Matt a challenge. Show me one thing in the Quran which you see which contradicts science. You know, there's many less you just type scientific contradiction in the Quran, you'll get all these. Let's just bring us one of those. And what you are going to find tonight is that the Quran is in complete harmony with modern science. So that's a challenge I will extend out to Matt. So let's look at the first scientific miracle. Now I'm going to rip through this very quickly here. Science today tells us that there's diseases such as Ebola, AIDS and COVID. These are zoonotic diseases. They jump from animals to man. Two animals which we're talking about over here are monkeys and bats. Okay, and this is basically how we got these diseases is and not only that but other pandemics as well are from these animals. Look at the astonishing statement of Prophet Muhammad when I find it, let's scroll down over here. The Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said, Allah's messenger forbade the eating of meats of beasts having things. So here we see on your screen, Islam is giving the preventive cure for these terrible pandemics and not just, you know, the present one but also future ones as well. So this is one scientifically correct statement. Now, just because we see scientifically correct statements in the Quran, you know, or in Islam that doesn't automatically make it a scientific miracle. There could be a lot of reasons behind that. For example, what you're going to do, you want to call the cops on every scientific miracle or you say agreement with science that you're going to find Islam, excuse me. So what does cop stand for? It could be a coincidence. It could be obvious. It could be plagiarism. Maybe he's copying it from some source or maybe the author of, maybe Muhammad was a great scientist. So this is what the cops, what it stands for. But what we're going to find is cops has not been a word for Islam due to the numerous amounts of scientifically correct statements. So let's get to some of them. I'm going to go very quickly through this. I apologize. And I'll tell you why I'm going to go through this very quickly, because when you look at all the debates in the past, which we had here on modern debate, the atheists actually don't disagree that the Quran is agreeing with science. So good. We're good on that. So let's move very quickly through this and let's look at the first scientifically correct statement. So now the author of the Quran makes three scientifically correct statements about the oceans. Okay. Science today tells us that there's these barriers in the ocean, which is called the picnic line. The picnic line is the barrier in the ocean. And you know, it divides the ocean in terms of density. The Quran says that there are barriers in the ocean, as we can see inside chapter 55 verse 19. Does this make it the Quran miracle? No, you could call the cops. I mean, cops can explain this away, but now what's very peculiar is the Quran made three scientifically correct statements about this. So this is very interesting. The Quran is making scientifically correct statements in pairs or in triplets. And if I can get to the next one here, now science also says that within the ocean, there are things which are called internal waves. Well, guess what? Once again, the Quran gets that right as well too. Let's click on that right here real quick. This is the article. There's these invisible waves, which are in the ocean. And this is, and when you read the Quran, it says, or as a likeness of the darkness in the vast ocean covered by waves above which are waves. Okay, now this matches up with what we know today with internal waves. And then the Quran says, it compares a disbeliever to the darkness in the ocean where there is no light. Look at this last statement, to whom Allah has not granted light has no light. So now these are three scientifically correct statements in the Quran about the ocean they match up. So the question here is, how can a human being talk so intelligently about something you don't know nothing about?  And yet he's making scientific accuracy after accuracy after accuracy. So Matt is gonna have to explain that to us, okay? Let us look at another example over here. Let me minimize this a little bit. I don't know, that's too big for you. Okay, I cannot even scroll here. Okay, here we go. The Quran also makes, let's go to ants. Now the Quran actually talks about talking ants. Now people who you were mocking at this and saying, ah, you see ants don't talk, they communicate through pheromones. Ah, but science today has confirmed that the Quran is right once again.  But when you read the following article, I'm not gonna give you a reference for this, just Google this here. I don't know if you can read that. Google this, here ants talk and you can listen to them talking. This is a recent modern day discovery. But the Quran also said in the Quran that they also sound off a warning. I'll read the verse for you in just a second here. I'm sorry, I forgot to do that. Read the Quran what it says over here. This is from a Vice article where they talk about this. Not only do they talk, but they also sound off voice alarms. The sound made by the mature ant pupa serves two functions. The research suggests the first indicates is to alarm. Now go back and read the verse of the Quran. Not only does it talk about talking ants, but what was he saying in the verse of the Quran? He was sounding off an alarm, which you read over here. In fact, let me minimize that real quick. Yeah, so basically it says, oh ants enter your dwellings that you are not crushed by Solomon and his soldiers. Now this is cool. Now I'm actually quoting a verse chapter 27 verse 19 of the Quran. The Quran also got the science of alcohol right while everybody else almost everybody else got it wrong. For example, we now know science has attributed because of the Quranic position on alcohol. Muslim women are 50, yeah, 50 times less likely to give birth to a fetal alcohol child. Let me take you that study real quick over here so you can kind of get your eyes on it. And the verse over here in the Quran, which actually chapter five verse 90 condemns alcohol. Here is a study right here that the Muslim women and it actually attributes it to Islam because of their Islamic faith, Muslim women are 50 times less likely to give birth to a fetal alcohol child. So now other people have also said, well, don't drink alcohol, that's true, but that's like one out of 50. So how is Muhammad getting that right? And the last statement on alcohol over here, the Quran, from the following CNN article, the right scientific position is, okay, yeah, there's some good about alcohol, but the harm of it outweighs any benefit. This is a CNN article, which I'm quoting for you. Look at the word for word agreement in the Holy Quran, chapter two, verse 219. They have some benefit for the people, but their harm is far greater than their benefits. Look how the scientifically correct statement comes in pairs. So you just can't say, okay, well, maybe this is being coincidental, maybe he's copying. Other people have condemned alcohol, oh, they have, but what they haven't done is produce two scientifically correct statements like this. So these sort of scientific miracle is not in the individual occurrence, but the scientific miracle, which Matt has to beat in the quantity, in the amount of scientific information. A human being cannot continuously get it right every time, all the time. And that's where the scientific miracle is. One or two, okay, you could call the cops, coincidence, observed, plagiarized, it could be explained to a three, four, okay, wait a second. And my time is up, by the way, or else I have actually more to share with you, but I think this is enough where I can show you cops does not explain it. So go ahead Matt. You gotta thank you very much for that opening and with that, want to, before we kick it over to Matt for his opening statement as well, wanna say folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you are from. And hey, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more huge debates and discussions. Coming up for example, at the bottom right of your screen, Perfect Dawa and Aaron Ra, tomorrow we'll talk about whether or not there is evidence for Islam. You don't wanna miss it, so hit that subscribe button. And with that, thanks very much for being with us as well, Matt. The floor is all yours for your opening. Awesome, thanks. I don't know why you didn't think I wasn't gonna debate this since I literally debated just a couple of weeks ago at the debate con in Dallas and I don't know why you're trashing Aaron since he just announced that Aaron's debating on the evidence for Islam tomorrow or whatever it is. I could repeat all of the things that I said in the last debate in my opening because absolutely none of it got addressed last time, but that would be a little lazy. So you can go watch that on your own time. Some of the points are gonna be repeated here, but the quick summary is that I've long said that I wanna believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Obviously we all have limitations on how much stuff we can learn, but my position is that truth is without which comports with reality. So what people believe isn't an indicator of whether or not it's true. The number of people who believe it isn't an indicator of whether that's true and neither is how strongly they believe it. Cool, the only thing that matters are testable claims. Testable claims are relevant to determining truth. Untestable claims are absolutely useless. If we were able to reboot the world, we would still discover the same truths about the world. We may not just discover them all in the same order or in the same way, but as long as the world is the same, if something is true, we would continue to discover it. Do we have good reason to think that anyone would discover or invent any of the world's religions exactly the same? No, and a strong indicator, this is the many different religions humans have come up with starting in different regions with different foundations tied to that culture in that time. Some survive, some don't, some get modified more than others, but none of them demonstrate truth, but they have adherents who are absolutely convinced that it's truth. Some people think it's just obvious that some religion is true because of their feelings about the claims of that religion, but if that were the case, then there would be enough evidence to conclude it was true and whatever God is at the core of it wouldn't have any reason to not simply present themselves to everyone. If its existence is obvious and true, if there's sufficient evidence to warrant believing in it, then that God has no reason not to show up and end this debate right now, but that never happens. Debating that the earth is flat is about convincing people. It's not about demonstrations of truth and the same thing seems to apply largely with God's. So the questions to ask yourself are what are the specific testable claims which are unique to Islam and essential to Islam? What is the empirical evidence and the process by which those textable claims were confirmed to be true? Any claim that doesn't have both of those elements cannot be said to be true, despite the fact or true for Islam, despite the fact that it might be believed or even be compelling. Fallacies are incredibly compelling and we've heard a number of fallacies already this evening. Fallacies are compelling due to our biases. You cannot point to the Koran to confirm the Koran and a claim that is ultimately unfalsifiable, sorry, that there is no way in principle or in actuality to show that it's not true, is a claim that is untestable and should be dismissed. So whether a claim is true may not be known, but until a package of claims is demonstrated to be true, it sits firmly in the not true category, which is not the same as the proven false category. It just means that we don't get to consider it just true until it's demonstrated. It appeals to faith, special revelation, special ways of knowing none of those are gonna work. They're not paths to truth. When you talk about prophecy or special knowledge or supposed scientific findings, you need specific remarkable, not mundane, and they need to be answerable by a single occurrence, independently verifiable by anyone who's not, and not prone to interpretation. Are there true statements in Islam? I would imagine yes. It would be a miracle almost if there weren't. By the way, there's no such thing as a scientific miracle. So I don't know how that phrase got in here, but if I have a list of 10 facts and eight of them are true, does that mean the list is true? And if I have a list of 10 facts and some of them are mundanely true and not unique to the packaged beliefs, do they demonstrate that the other claims are true? There's a scam, a stock tip scan, where someone will get multiple stock tips from someone to prove that they have like an inside source and that they know what's gonna happen. And after someone gets six, seven, eight stock tips correct and they can test them all, they're like, man, this guy's been right every single time, so I will invest on the ninth one. Well, the way that that scam is often done is by telling two groups of people, two different tips, and then going to the one where you've got it right and you tell them two different tips and you go to the ones you got it right and you keep doing that.  I had eight correct stock tips from this person. I think it's reasonable for me to trust the ninth one. That's how scams work. You can do the same thing with flipping heads or tails on the audience. Now, I can't disprove Islam, but I don't have to. No matter how many times in a year or somebody else says, Matt needs to show how this happened, that's not the case. The question here is, is Islam true? Not can Matt show that Islam has made false statements? You have to actually demonstrate the truth. I'm not here to debunk or to disprove anything. I don't have any burden of proof at all. I can point out problems and fallacies and I can show where the truths haven't been demonstrated but a good chunk of religious ideology simply isn't testable. But that's true for most religions. And if you're thinking, well, it's okay to think it's true until somebody can debunk it, you've fallen for yet another trap because the extent to which that is true for Islam, it's also true for Christianity and countless other beliefs. So if you're sitting here going, ah, I should believe this until it's disproved, then in order to be intellectually honest and rigorous and consistent, you would need to be a Muslim, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Scientologist, a Hindu, a Jain and a Sikh at least all at once. Which means that any of the appeals to it hasn't been disproved is simply a special pleading fallacy. When arguing for the truth claims, you cannot appeal to interpretation or poetry or metaphor. So when we talk about claims from the Quran, which is where the bulk of what would be the foundation of Islam would come from, there are lots of proposed falsifiable claims that I haven't been able to find anyone who showed me where they're actually falsifiable. What facts of Islam need to be demonstrated before we could say that it's true? Well, the existence of their specific God, not a general God, which also still hasn't been demonstrated, the accurate characteristics and qualities of that God, the specific desires and commands that supposedly come from that God, that Muhammad was a prophet versus just claimed to be or claimed by others to be for that specific God, that Muhammad was the final prophet. The various tenets about prayer, submission and moral claims, all of those would need to be proven true before we could reasonably say Islam is true. Now, last time I addressed the proposed claim that the purpose of existence in Islam is to worship God. How do you show that this is true? My last opponent didn't even attempt it, and I'm not gonna be saddling to dear with things that Kenny did, but that question is still out there. If in fact it is a tenet of Islam, that the purpose of life is to worship God, how do you demonstrate that that's true? Where's your measuring device, your detecting device for purpose? I have yet to hear about one. And saying atheism doesn't make people happy or sense oneness or all of the other things that dear might have presented.  That's just a deflection. It's like, ah, would the world be better under atheism? Which would be an interesting debate, but that's not the debate we're here for. I would happily debate, is the world better under atheism? Or actually what I would debate is, is the world better under humanism than under Islam? But that's not what we're here for. The subject of the night's debate is, is Islam true? So all the trash talking about what atheism does or doesn't do is irrelevant. And going back to find verses in the Quran that seem to match scientific findings is also useless, because the Quran didn't edify anyone about any of those things. Science found those things to the extent that something in the Quran is consistent with the findings of science is interesting, but it doesn't show that that was a known quantity by the author and it wasn't known or useful until science actually demonstrated. Some of this reminds me of the famous old dialogue that was written up by Jay Huber years ago called Kissing Hank's Ass. And someone basically shows up at his door and I've modified this with some slightly softer language, but shows up at his door preaching on behalf of Hank and they show up with a list that says from the desk of Carl.  Item number two says use alcohol and moderation.  Item number four says eat right. Number five is Hank dictated this list himself. Number six is that the moon is made of green cheese. Number seven says everything Hank says is right. Eight is wash your hands after going to the bathroom. Nine is don't use alcohol. 10 is eat your wieners on buns with no condiments.  And what they'll do is they'll point to it and say, hey, you know what? It says, you know, eat right. That's a good advice. And if you say yes, but it also says the moon is made of green cheese. Ah, but you haven't been there to check whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. Yes, but it says use alcohol and moderation, which I would seem to think is an okay thing, but it also says don't use alcohol, but that's not a conflict when you really get down to it. And that tells us nothing at all about whether or not Hank exists, whether or not he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town. It tells me nothing at all about whether Hank dictated the list himself. These are all deflections. And this is what we see consistently from apologists under many different religions, is when asked to demonstrate the truth of the tenants, the truth of the foundations of their religion. Instead, they wanna talk about how bad other things are, how atheism can't do this or that, and then say, but here's a claim that we got right. Here's a claim that we got right. Okay, demonstrate that the purpose of life is to worship God. Demonstrate all of the various tenants within Islam. Demonstrate that a God exists. Demonstrate that this specific God exists. It does mean no good for you to say, ah, you know what? This guy who I lived in a desert and probably shouldn't have known seems to have gotten something right about ants or an ocean. When the question then follows is, was he actually right? Did he know it?  Or is this an interpretation issue or whatever? But even if the Quran said amazingly that someday in 2022, Madden Adir will debate this topic. I mean, that would be remarkable. There's nothing that's even that specific and I wouldn't say that that is specific enough. So the questions to ask are, what are the specific tied to Islam claims? And what is the methodology that was used to show that those things were true? Because if on the list are things that are science claims, okay, cool, you got some science claims right or you can find a way to massage or an interpretation after the fact to suggest that science things are right. But it's not up to the rest of the world to say, oh, I know how they got that right without appealing to a God. It's up to you to demonstrate that not only is it most likely that a specific God gave them this information, but that that is the most reasonable course of action. That is the most reasonable conclusion that any reasonable person could draw given the available information. Not just it seems remarkable to me, not just you haven't debunked, that is shifting the burden of proof. And so in each of these individual debates, what I'm gonna keep asking is give me something that is specific to Islam, unique to Islam, and how you demonstrated that it's true. And until you do that, all you can say is that the Quran includes some true statements that you find remarkable, but none of them demonstrate the truth of Allah, of Muhammad being the final prophet, of the purpose of life being to worship God. The core things of Islam got completely ignored in Adir's opening statement, and more time was spent trashing atheism irrelevantly than it was to show me a tenet of Islam that could be demonstrated to be true. Thank you very much for that opening, Matt, and we're gonna jump into open dialogue, folks. So this is roughly speaking gonna be two-minute intervals of the speakers speaking back and forth in this discussion. If you happen to have a question, you can feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate, as well as if you wanna use a super chat, that pushes your question to the top of the list. With that, if you're enjoying this debate so far, as much as I am, don't forget to hit that like. That helps a lot. And with that, thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Thank you. I'll just go for two minutes very quickly here. So you brought up a lot of points and I'll do my best to try to answer them. You asked why did I quote Trash Arun Rao? No, I'm not trashing the guy. I mean, the debate he's having with perfect Dava tomorrow, he's a very easy opponent.  It's that debate which he's running from. So anyway, I don't wanna really get into him right now. That's, you know, you can reach out to him and ask him why he's running away. But now I wanna start, I wanna just tighten the news here around Matt. There was something which he ignored. The Quran is consistently making scientifically correct statements. And for that, you will have no answer for it, okay? So based on that, and not only that, but we saw all the good which is slum and how it's rehabilitating prisoners, millions of them making this world a better place. So it's not just that the Quran is presenting a scientific miracle. So now you did say, well, you know, there's things that could have been vague and these are things which are just not remarkable. Ah, that's your interpretation. So right off the bat, who's playing the interpretation game? What you find remarkable maybe is your own personal choice. So you don't find saving millions of children from fetal alcohol syndrome, like the study which I showed you, that's not remarkable for him. You see, so this is something so that I would ask for you to see that as something remarkable. Now, when I said the Quran has word for word agreement with modern times, let me just give you one of the many examples over here. Science said that this end, and you quoted the guy, Henry, he was saying, well, drink alcohol in moderation. Wrong. That is scientifically inaccurate based on the study which I showed over a year. It states very clearly that the overall health risk of drinking alcohol outweighs any benefits. The Quran, chapter two, verse 19, they have some benefit for the people, but the harm is far greater than their benefit. If people even in today's time can't get it right, then how do you explain Muhammad got it right 1400 years ago? Now you can call the cops true, but what the question you need to answer here tonight, how do you explain the plethora, all the amount of scientifically correct statements in Islam, go ahead. Okay, I guess it's my two minutes. So are we just doing two minutes for the whole 50 or are we gonna have conversation as well? Right, two minutes back and forth. Okay, so Nadir starts off by saying there was something I ignored. Well, I'm sorry, Nadir, but that was my opening statement which I wrote ahead of time. And so that's not the point where you would offer rebuttals. So stop pretending that I haven't addressed your points when we haven't even gotten to the point where I would actually address your points. The fact that I added some or predicted some is actually pretty impressive, I would say. But you also said asserted that I will have no answer for them. Well, first of all, I think there's lots of different answers for many of them. So let's just go with the one where there's studies that show that prisoners have been helped by Islam. I've never suggested that religions of any kind don't actually provide useful benefits to people, especially in prisons. Christianity makes this claim all the time that there are plenty of Christian ministers that go in and say, oh, they've turned their lives around. But the recidivism rates haven't actually been studied. But at the end of the day, even if everybody in prison converted to Islam and became a better person, that would be wonderful. But it would not in any way demonstrate that Islam is true because you can convince someone of something that is not true and have it have a wonderful impact on their life. And the truth of that is that you don't think Christianity is true, I'm assuming, otherwise you would be a Christian and there are plenty of people who will testify about how wonderfully their life has been changed because of Christianity. Similarly, you objected to me quoting Henry or Hank as a drink in moderation. That was a parody thing. I wasn't, it was meant to be easily understood as a parody thing. But you went on to assert that modern science is starting to affirm what Muhammad knew all along that even drinking in moderation is bad. Well, I don't accept it, even drinking in moderation is bad. But to whatever extent that it is bad because, for example, I don't have a drinking problem. So if I have a drink on occasion, there are benefits and if I'm getting those benefits without side effects then it may not be bad for me in that situation rather than say it pretending that we have an answer that applies to everybody. But I don't find it remotely surprising that people who have lived around other people at any time in human history and watched them get drunk and how they interact with people would have come to a conclusion that drinking causes problems. And the fact that we later on in scientific exploration discovered and identified some of those problems is a credit to science, not Islam. Okay, yeah, so let me just very quickly address the whole thing about Henry. The point about Henry is he said something scientifically incorrect. And that is, and the point here, and not just Henry, but if you look at the past debate, even I debated scientists over there and getting it incorrect, the right position on alcohol, which yeah, there is some good in it, but the overall health risk, no, it's not good. Now the latest studies show that they cause brain damage, even just one cup. So the issue here is Muhammad got it right 1400 years ago. And so, and now you call the cops, good. You said, well, you know, he might have watched and observed and yeah, that's fine. You can explain it away like that, but Islam got two scientifically correct statements, not just one. Now, what's really funny here is you are now rejecting the scientific consensus here. You see, so now who's contradicting science? Is it Islam? No, it's Matt over here. He is saying, well, I think it's, there's some good in and out and I think there's no, he gave some explanation which differs from the scientific community. So here's what I say about atheists who try to contradict science to save themselves, to save atheism from the demolition of the science of the Quran.  And when the scientists say, yes, what Matt is saying is right, then I will say, look, Quran is wrong. Quran is wrong on this position, but notice he's struggling. He's not able to answer, why do we find so much scientifically correct statements in the Quran? You know, that's where the scientific miracles, one or two occurrences that Quran condemns alcohol. So what, who cares? But making, I think gave you like six or seven scientifically correct statements. Now that's something a human being cannot do. Regarding the issues of prisons, you know, you're saying, well maybe Christians can do that. Yeah, why should I believe in atheism? What did atheism ever do? If Christianity in your hypothetical example did also good like this, it's even more reason to reject atheism and embrace his belief in God because we see it changing people's life for the better, millions of people are becoming better citizens based on the research I showed you. Okay, so I'm sorry that you don't understand that the kissing-hangs-ass thing is a parody. Not only did he say use alcohol in moderation, for number nine, he said, don't use alcohol. The point there is to demonstrate that there are conflicting contradictory statements there. There wasn't anything there about the science and I'm not denying science. I'm talking about what I was or wasn't convinced of because there are studies that show that there are benefits to alcohol in moderation and there are other studies that show that brain damage occurs even after a single cup. However, whether or not, which one of those is actually worse or if the bad outweighs the good is largely, I don't, it doesn't really matter because as I pointed out, I'm not, even if they got it right, that doesn't tell you how they got it right and it doesn't prove that Islam is true. And so when you say something like, why should anybody believe in atheism, you are now dodging more than I could possibly ever dodge because atheism isn't something you could believe in. It is not a positive position that one accepts. But also it's irrelevant to whether or not Islam is true. Whether or not people enjoy Islam, whether or not people benefit from Islam, whether or not people find their life better on Islam, whether or not people hate atheism, whether or not atheism makes people worse people is irrelevant to the subject of this debate, which is Islam true.  With this, I forgot what the next thing was, it was here. There's a fallacious implication that you've done about four times between your opening and these remarks, which is that your position stands as true until I'm able to debunk it, which is absolutely false. It doesn't matter if I can debunk it, I'm not here to debunk anything. You have to demonstrate that your conclusion is true because the fact that there's something in the Quran that is consistent with the findings of modern science doesn't tell you whether or not the God of Quran is real. It doesn't tell you whether or not the purpose of life according to the Quran is real. It doesn't tell you if Islam is real, it just tells you that there are things in the book that are consistent with science. And while that may be interesting and remarkable, it in no way demonstrates the truth of Islam. Are you going to demonstrate the truth of Islam with something specific to Islam? I'm done. Go ahead Nadir. I don't need to take the full two minutes.  Are you going to demonstrate some truth of Islam? Well, I think I already did. And I think what's happening here is he's not going to be able to beat the case. We know there's too many scientifically agreeable statements which agree is modern science. The whole thing about Hank is he got it wrong. I mean, it's not just Hank. Everyone's getting it wrong. To be very honest with you. When I bring up the issue, oh, well, there's some good stuff and alcohol, but I don't want to get into that. I've shared with you the article. If you need it, I can email it to you. I want to move on just to get to some more astonishing, remarkable, scientifically correct statements, okay? Now here we see that the Quran or Prophet Muhammad gives the preventive cure for zoonotic diseases. And I've mentioned AIDS, Ebola, COVID-19. These are diseases which hop from animal to human beings, monkeys and bats. Look at the astonishing preventive cure from Prophet Muhammad. It says, Allah's messenger forbade the eating of meats of beasts having fangs. If humanity were to follow the advice of Prophet Muhammad, Salah al-Aqsa, we would not be seeing the terrible pandemic except today and the ones we're terrified which are coming tomorrow, you know? So the issue here to sum up, you know, why we say Islam is true. Here we see one man, Prophet Muhammad, okay? In the desert is giving us all this correct scientific information, okay? If it's one or two, it's no big deal, but the amount of scientifically correct statements, there's a miracle right there. All right? And that's the case which I don't think you or anybody here are gonna beat and that's why your buddy Aaron Roth ran away. Atheists are seeing today now that there is validity to the scientific arguments of Islam and they see this now as an unwinnable argument and I think that's why Matt is backing away from answering the challenge of the amount of scientifically correct statements.  Well, the case is the accumulation of anecdotes does not equal data and the accumulation of things that are interesting does not demonstrate the truth of Islam. Once again, after being directly asked, you have yet to demonstrate any specific claim of Islam that is unique to Islam. Scientific claims are not unique to Islam.  They have nothing to do with whether or not there's a God or what the purpose of life is or whether or not one should pray. You have yet to even present a single tenet of Islam that you could demonstrate is true, let alone demonstrating is true. And I'm sorry for whatever Aaron Roth did to you that you seem to wanna mention him every time you get the opportunity to speak. But are you suggesting that COVID comes from eating cobras? What's the problem with eating cobras? What, you know, that's a beast with a fang. Are you suggesting that every, that because the Quran says this, that every beast on the planet that has fangs that we should not eat it because it will cause disease because I don't think science has demonstrated that. I'm done. So let me very quickly help you out with a scientific aspect. So this is something, when we talk about COVID and other diseases like that, these are something which are known as zoonotic diseases. So they say basically the origin of the, what's it called, of COVID is bats. Now I know there's a lot of politics involved in that, came from a lab and things like that, but I'm just going with what science is as of right now telling us. But it doesn't matter. Bats have over 400 known COVID viruses upon them. But what is not disputed is monkeys. Monkeys is where AIDS hopped off from the consumption of monkey meat, Ebola. It came from monkeys and through, and here's a reference which I have over here basically talking about HIV. It came through the butchery and the consumption of monkey meat. So I don't, Matt was not able to deny the claim that Islam does have the cure, the preventive cure for this terrible pandemic. And he's talking about, well, I wanna see something which is unique to Islam. Well, the cure for COVID and all these terrible zoonotic diseases that jump from monkey to, or from animal to man. That's pretty unique for Islam. You're not gonna find that anywhere else. But these are all false criteria. The question tonight, one man is giving us all this scientific information, three correct statements about seas. We saw the barrier. We saw internal waves, darkness in the ocean because science today tells us that at the very bottom of the ocean, there's no light. Islam compared the disbelievers to that. They said for that disbeliever, there is no light. Two scientifically correct statements about alcohol. Two scientifically correct statement about ants. I got a lot more, but I ran out of time. I'm already, I think I've already sealed the deal with just the scientific arguments which I've presented. But it's not only that, but we now know that there's something about Islam which brings great happiness to people based on their research. I bring up atheism just to kind of make fun, just to poke at the bear. But at the same time, you know, when you decide, okay, well, what religion is the truth one, you gotta sometimes compare. Well, let's see, atheism doesn't do anything.  I found atheism, therefore, I'm a better human being. I'm not saying it can never happen. It can happen, but it doesn't do that. Yeah, I don't know. Here's the problem with this two minute format. I'm gonna talk for two minutes and I'm gonna stop early because I'm gonna ask a question in the hopes that you'll eventually, let me see if I can explain this. A tenet of Islam is not pointing to a scientific claim about the world. A tenet of Islam is something about the religion of Islam. This is why I brought up the Kissing Hanks asked list because it has things on it that are true, but that doesn't mean that other things are true. And if we're going to say, is Islam true? If the only thing that you can present is that you find it remarkable that somebody got some things about science right, which I'm not even necessarily completely convinced that that's the case for a lot of these, cool. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a law is real. It has nothing to do with whether or not Muhammad was a prophet of a law. It has nothing to do with whether or not Muhammad was the last prophet. It has nothing to do with the purpose of life. It has nothing to do with prayers, none of that. If I showed up, and by the way, atheism isn't a religion. You don't have to compare it to other religions. And you don't have to pick a religion. That's what atheism is basically saying. It's saying, I agree with all of you religions that all of the other ones are wrong. It's just that I also include yours is not viable either. That's the way this works. If you're going to claim that something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. Not that it has said or that the book base that it's derived from has said some things that are true that are also said elsewhere. Scientific findings are not tenets of Islam. If all you can ever demonstrate is that the Quran got some stuff right about science and that some people are happier as Muslims, congratulations, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing that Islam is true, that it might be beneficial, that it might have useful information, that you might have demonstrated, but not that it is true. And the subject of the debate tonight is not, did some guy say these scientific things? The subject of the debate tonight is, is Islam true? And maybe the reason you thought I wouldn't show up to debate is because you didn't show up to debate it. Okay, well, up to this point, what I was doing I was establishing evidence. You see, to answer that question, is Islam true? We got to present evidence. And you want to say, well, how do we know this thing is really true? Well, you have many different belief systems. You have Christianity or atheism, you have Islam. And the way to answer this question is to examine what evidences are provided by each of these belief systems. So I actually looked at the evidences for Islam and I found it to be the most compelling. And so the point here is, through human reason, we can arrive at why Islam is the true religion. And the evidence, which is irrefutable, is this man, if we think about him, Prophet Muhammad, he started a scientific revolution which has benefited and helped all of humanity, which I showed you in my opening presentation. All of Western Europe's science mathematics and have all benefited from the revolutionary libraries of Islam. That was one of the quotations I was gonna share with you about other matter now. Then we see that this so-called person in the desert, if he was a liar, if he was a charlatan, how do you explain him to being able to do all of this? We also show that he's a powerful rehabilitating force in the prisons. Millions of people, it has bettered their life, made them better human beings. And this is something consistent with what we know a loving, compassionate God would do. Okay, so it's consistent with that. Okay, so we, and then we see that Islam brings great happiness in people's life based on the study which I showed you, this feeling of oneness, which we talked about. And so when you start adding up all these things, it starts pointing to, hey, there's something different about Islam, which atheism has no evidence for. Christianity, of course, they're gone because they're not here debating these topics of all the errors in their book. You know, all the scientific contradiction in their book. And we're gonna get to that in just a second, by the way, because I will extend my challenge for you to show me something scientifically incorrect in the Quran, like you did in your debate with Kenny. Time, with that, we'll kick it over to Matt. So you started by saying that we have to present evidence. I'd love for you to present evidence. And then you say, you followed up saying that we have to present evidence by saying, what we have to do is compare evidences for each. No, sir, that's not how we determine truth.  Well, that's not how we find truth either. So you started by getting it right by saying you need to present evidence. But then instead of presenting any evidence, you said that we need to compare the evidences for a variety of religions and that you found Islam the most compelling. Well, that's like saying that you found someone to be the prettiest person at the ugly competition. It doesn't tell you whether or not they're pretty. The fact that they're the prettiest at the ugly competition is what you found. What you find most compelling is completely irrelevant to whether that's true. And your repeated refrain, which you've now said expressly as, how do you explain it? Is an argument from ignorance fallacy. It is an implicit assertion that your truth stands until somebody can debunk it, which is absolutely 100% undeniably fallacious. The suggestion that something is true until it's proven wrong is a fallacy. I would hope that you would at least recognize that. But when you went around saying, I want you to show me something that's wrong in the Quran. Well, it doesn't make any difference whether I could or whether anybody else could because even if there's nothing in there that somebody can identify as scientifically wrong, what we're talking about is, is it testable? Is it falsifiable? And have you demonstrated the truth of any of the tenants and the answer to all of those seems to be no. You got it, thank you very much. And folks, we'll remind you if you haven't yet, hit that like button. We really do appreciate that support. And with that, Nadir the floor is all yours. Yeah, so I think what Matt is trying to do, he's trying to turn this into a debate about evidence. How do we weigh evidence? And I guess we could sort of talk about that, but I think we need to look at the big elephant in the room, what's really going on here? And I told you this in the very, that one of my first statements in this debate that atheists are gonna run away from the science of the Quran. And I mentioned that very clearly in the beginning and look at this, what we see here in tonight. He's backing away, look in his debate with Kenny, he was saying, the Quran contradicts science here, it talks about pairs, it talks about flatters and when all, I don't see any of that tonight. And so he wants to back away, but I know my challenge is out there to extend you because this is the false ability test, which I'm giving it to you. Show me the way you claim that the Quran contradicts modern science and you will never find that. You said basically something is true until proven wrong. I'm not arguing that, I'm not saying, I've never argued that. You are attacking a straw man at this point. The logic here about why we say Islam is true, because we look at this one man, Prophet Muhammad, is consistently bringing to us scientifically correct statement. We talked about talking ants, that they warn people. We talked about three scientifically correct statements about seas, two about alcohol, and then my time is up and I didn't have any more. But then that's just the short list here. So we're like, wait a second, how is a human being consistently giving us scientifically correct statements? That's not possible, we can call the cops. And we can say this could be a coincidence, it could be observed, it could, maybe he plagiarized copying it from somewhere else, but cops can't explain the amount of scientifically correct statements in the Quran.  So that is, so based on the bulk of evidence which we are seeing here, it is reasonable to assume this is the result of God. Thank you. Yeah, so first of all, the second you say something like it's reasonable to assume, you don't understand what reason is. And yes, I do want to make this a debate about evidence because I think that's what debates should be. If you're going to say something is true, you should be presenting the evidence for it. So yes, I'm going to make this a debate about evidence. I'm not running away from the science of it, it's just that I pointed out what is and isn't relevant to the truth of whether or not Islam is true. The fact that you keep pointing to things that are scientifically consistent from your perspective is irrelevant to whether or not the foundational tenets of Islam are true. I don't know how many times I can just repeat that, but you seem to be upset that I didn't do the exact same opening statement that I did for Kenny. Now, I explained at the beginning why I did that because I think that would be incredibly lazy of me to just come in and say the same things. But it's the exact same subject, literally, is Islam true? This is the same subject. If you want to bring up something so desperately that you think I said, why didn't you do it? And why didn't you counter any of those things in your opening statement? Were you sitting here trying to set a trap? Some of us are able to focus on a number of different things at once. And so when I decided, hey, I'm going to debate this exact same subject again, there's no reason for me to repeat what I've already said. I'm not a religious apologist. I don't have to come in and say the same shit week after week after week after week.  How do you explain that? Well, the issue here is not, do you have an alternate explanation for it's because God told him? The issue is, can you show that God told him and you can't? Yeah, so he wants to turn this into a debate about evidence. And I've already pointed out, like I said, he is, and I'm telling it to you to your face, not, I'm sorry, am I talking or who's talking? I think he's talking. It's your turn. It's your turn. Oh, okay. Because I think Matt thinks he's talking. No, I just nodded. I didn't say a word. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I was got confused, never mind. All right. I've already said that the scientific evidence of the Quran is unchallengable and it's undeniable. Yes, there is something very significant about the Quran and science. Many people have tried to make claims about the Quran contradict science. Sperm comes from the backbone and the ribs and they bring up all of these fallacious arguments, but they're also watching the debates and they're watching these arguments getting destroyed one by one. So now, and I called it out from the very beginning and the very start of this discussion, I was very surprised he would even show up tonight to challenge the scientific miracles of the Quran because the atheists and all these people are now watching these debates and they're seeing, oh my God, there is validity to the scientific miracle narrative here. So I'm gonna leave that alone. It looks like that is a case which is closed now. I think the case has been made on that. So now, and you're right, I didn't address a lot of the things in your 10 minutes because I was kind of moving in for the kill. To use the science of the Quran to basically prove that there is something supernatural. Now you did say something, right? Well, I can't really prove it's a God, but what we can prove on math is there is something supernatural because a near human being in the desert cannot be the alter of so many scientifically correct statements and then turn around and have this power to rehabilitate millions of prisoners in the prison system and making them better human beings as the research showed and to bring happiness and good in our life based on the study which I presented to you. You were like, wait a second, how is one guy doing all this, you know? And so when we say, look, this could be the result of God is very reasonable. So you just said that you could prove that there is something supernatural and you follow that up by saying that you can prove there's something supernatural because a human being cannot get certain scientific things right and inspire people to change their lives. That's just a bald assertion. You haven't demonstrated that that's not possible. I see everything points to the conclusion that it is possible and the fact that you're denying other religions doing the same thing, that demonstrates that it's actually possible. And once again, you've expressed a prize that I even bothered to show up, which I find absurd, but I'm glad one of us did. Well, I actually agree with what you're saying. You said basically many people changing, you know, other religions can make the same claim that many people, they look like we rehabilitated people. That doesn't prove it to be from God. I do accept that argument that that's absolutely valid. And I've said that from the very beginning. If we look at these individual occurrences, you can call the cops, which is what you're doing. You're calling the cops and say, well, you can be explained. Yeah, of course you can. The miracle is not in the individual occurrence. The miracle is in the quantity and the quality. What do I mean by quality? Quality meaning if you look at the scientific arguments, I was not, you know, playing with a verse, interpreting it into there. And so when you actually look at the ground, and say that I'm reading science into the Quran or doing any of that kind of monkey business, that you see other people doing. That's, so it's the quality. It is word for word agreement with modern science. And it's undeniable. So that's where the scientific miracle is. Now you said that, you know, so, but I want to get back to your point. Okay, well, other religions can do this as well where they rehabilitate prisoners. Oh, that's true. And that's all the more reason why I'm not an atheist. Because there is something out there that's doing this. You see, so that's actually kind of a death blow for your belief system. And so, yeah, now of course, that fact alone will not point to Islam. That's true, but when you start adding it all together, he also triggered a scientific, Muhammad triggered a scientific revolution called the Golden Age of Islam, which benefited all of humanity. Like, okay, wait a second, you're doing all this? This is why we say the Quran is a scientific miracle. It's not just one or two occurrences which you can call the cops. It's the miracle is in the quantity of it and the quality of it. And so the point which I'm trying to raise to you, when you see this miracle right before your very own eyes, which is in the quantity and the quality, not the individual occurrence map, please get that right. And so to say this is from God, it's kind of reasonable. Yeah, I don't suggest that I didn't get it right and that I was only talking about a single instance because ages ago I already said the plural of anecdote is not data and that the truth isn't impacted by the number of people believe something or even the number of claims that they might get right. The number of claims that aren't tied to the foundations of Islam is irrelevant. If I, this is the whole purpose, I'm sorry that you didn't understand this, but the whole purpose of Hank's List is to, it was a parody that somebody wrote. Not a real, this wasn't about a real religion. It's a parody of religion so that it is ambiguous or agnostic as to whether it's about Islam or Christianity or whatever else because not about any of them, but it is about what you guys do, which is you come in with a list and you say these things are right, therefore these other things are right. Well, the things that you're saying are right have nothing to do with those other things. There could be a count, there could be hundreds of true statements in the Quran and that doesn't tell you at all whether or not there is a God, whether it's Allah, whether Muhammad was a prophet of Allah, whether Muhammad was the last prophet of Allah and whether the purpose of life is to worship God. All five things that you haven't even begun to even attempt to address at all.  Well, my belief system with regard to, atheism is not a belief system, it's a position on a single issue. To whatever extent I have a belief system, when it comes to epistemology, it's skepticism, when it comes to morality, it's humanism. And if you wanna have a debate about what's just better for the world, humanism or Islam, I already said at the outset that I would be happy to do that. But tonight's debate is supposed to be, is Islam true? Are you going to defend any of those five individual things or anything similar within Islam to show that they are actually true? Or are you just going to keep saying, there's so much here that's remarkable, it must be God because that is a fallacious argument. I don't know how else to explain logical fallacies to you and your friends, but you guys keep committing them. The way to reach truth is not through a path of how else can you explain this? That's a logical fallacy. Are you going to defend the truth of Islam or not? Cause now we're just wasting time. Well, right now you're attacking a straw man. I never argued it because you see all the miraculous things in the Quran and with Prophet Muhammad, it must be God. I never said that. I said, it's a reasonable, now it's a very reasonable conclusion. It's actually the most smartest conclusion to assume that there is a God. And again, like I said, some of the issues you're right, I didn't exactly address them because I was too busy focusing on the science of the Quran, but now I'll do my best to answer the rest of these questions here. I never asked the question, how else can you explain this? The issue, I never said that. I said, we can call the cops. That explains one or two or three occurrences, but it can't explain all of it. So we do have something supernatural in Islam. Now, one of your questions, well, how do you know the rest of it is true? So one of the promises made in the Quran is that Allah will actually protect this book, okay? And it will protect it from corruption, which the other books is not there. And so one of the falsification tests of that is actually to find scientific contradiction in it. Cause I can tell you what, in all the other books, whether it's the Bible, whether it's the book of Galen or all the other, you will find scientific contradictions, but you will never find that with the Quran. The Quran is incomplete harmony with modern science. And that fact's not, now, when we look at that bulk of evidence, that actually matches up with the promise Allah gave us in the Quran that he will protect this book from corruption. So again, we see confirmation of what the Quran is teaching us. So the point which I'm trying to make to you is, when you look at the bulk of evidence, something has to answer for the supernatural, quality of the Quran. A mere human being cannot do all of this. He cannot be the author of all of these scientific statements. So we need to now find a good answer for that. So God is very reasonable and it's really the best answer. Now you could, of course, it may be the Martians, aliens, possibly, but the God one actually does make more sense. And we can go in to explain why that makes more sense out of all the supernatural possibilities. Time. Sure. So I understand it. You actually did say, I wrote it down as you said it and somebody can rewind. How do you explain that? You literally did. And then you just denied it a little while ago. Instead of denying stuff, especially if it's at least in the spirit of what you've been saying over and over again. And it's literally what you said that people can rewind to.  But when you say that God is the most smartest conclusion to assume, the debate's over. Most smartest is silly already, but conclusion to assume, that's not the way conclusions work. You don't just assume things. This is what you keep doing. You keep assuming that no man could do that. You keep asserting that it's the case no man could do this and assuming that it's the case, but you don't ever demonstrate it. You haven't presented any argument or evidence that a single man couldn't write a book that impacted people's lives and included true statements. You can't. And your assertion that this must be supernatural is without cause as well. It's out of any justification as well. God doesn't explain anything and the supernatural isn't something you just get to assert. I mean, you talk about how the Quran will be protected and protected from corruption. Well, the Bible says the same thing even though we know that that's not true, but I don't care about the Bible because I'm not a Christian, but I will tell you that when it comes to Scientology, for example, they still have the original copies in their founder's handwriting. And so that's one way to protect it from corruption. Is God protecting Scientology from corruption? But the fact, whether or not something becomes corrupt or altered or whatever is also not evidence that there is in fact a God protecting it. You keep coming up with these things. Ooh, there's a whole bunch of claims here. No human being could do that, therefore God. Ooh, the book is still in the, we still have the original and we still are true to the original. That just couldn't be the case unless there's a God. You keep making all these assertions that something could not be the case unless there's a God. Well, God is not a candidate explanation until you demonstrate that God is real, period. It doesn't even get to be, when we say here's a dead body, what is the explanation for this? If you say God did it, then the question is, how do you know there is a God? How do you know that God can do this?  If a God exists, certainly a God could kill somebody. But the fact that you have a dead body is evidence of a dead body. It's not evidence that a God did it. So you have to show how and why God is a valid candidate explanation before you get to go running to, it's the best explanation because it doesn't explain anything. It's an attempt to solve a mystery with a mystery. So you're saying it's a mystery now. So basically I think, let me see if I can just very quickly correct you on some of the misunderstandings you have about the Bible. I don't think the Bible says that, know that this book cannot be corrupted by man. At least I'm not aware of any verse like that. So the, and I never said, look, it's uncorruptible, therefore it's from God. No, my argument was, look, the fact that the Quran is incomplete, harmony was modern science, that is consistent with the claim and the promise, which the Quran made that Allah will protect it. Where we are right now with the Quran is that it is supernatural. That's indisputable based on the scientific evidence. I present, and let's say we assign probability to the possibility of getting all this stuff right. The probability of giving us a cure for COVID Ebola and the probability of getting the right dosage on the drug of alcohol, which is none, which saved all these children from the curse or from the disease of fetal alcohol syndrome. Let's just say it's 50% of getting all this stuff right. As you can see, I'm being very charitable here. Well, when you do like, let's say I gave you eight scientifically correct statements there, well, now that, so that's the probability of you getting it right every time is now one over 64, which is very improbable. And I have more scientific evidence. And then you turn around and start a scientific revolution, then you have this power in you to rehabilitate millions of prisoners, which are eight of them doesn't do anything. And then you have the ability to bring this sense of oneness and happiness to people. Muslims are number one among all the different beliefs. So we're like, wait a second, one human being can't be doing all this stuff. Okay, that doesn't make no sense. So now we have, so now the only option there is something supernatural. There is something which is causing this to happen. So we, I cannot prove that it is God who's doing that. Yes, you're right, Matt. But what I can say, that's the most intelligent explanation for the facts. It makes sense. And it's really the best explanation. And when we see things like the cure for COVID and all these things, it's consistent with the God.  I have no comment. We're gonna jump into the Q and A, folks. Wanna say if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat with at modern day debate. Otherwise, if you put it into a super chat, those get bumped to the top of the list. Wanna do a couple of quick housekeeping things as I'm setting up this Q and A. In particular, our guests are linked in the description. If you would like to hear more from our guests, you certainly can by clicking on those links. That includes that the podcast as modern day debate has a podcast and we put our guest links there as well. So if you're listening to the podcast, hey, check them out there too. And with that, thank you very much for your question. This one first coming in from the buff guy says for Nadir. Quran 2561 says, blessed be he who hath, then parentheses skipped some text, says placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light. So does the moon emit light? So I like what's going on over here. So now people are doing the atheist in the audience. They're doing damage control. They're now trying to find errors in the Quran which Matt was not able to do so tonight. Well, he tried those arguments with Kenny, but he wouldn't try those arguments with me. So, okay, so you did bring up issues of scientific errors with Kenny, didn't you? Actually, if you go back and listen to my opening with Kenny, I listed things and said, I'm not going to bother addressing those. They show up in a bunch of lists. I listed a bunch of things off and we didn't talk about them because we didn't get to talk about anything in my opening. So you clearly didn't pay that much attention to what actually happened. I was addressing things that Kenny said for the entire debate. We never went over that list and I didn't present that list. And as a matter of fact, I specifically said I wasn't presenting that list. I saw you in that video. You were saying that Quran said that everything- People can go watch it. I don't need to debate with you about what I actually said. You lied about what I said. They can go watch it themselves. This one from Sama says, Nadir, when you debated JF, he offered an explanation for Muhammad's supposed divine knowledge. Do you accept his standard of quote unquote, loose inspiration as a more plausible explanation than your proposal? I don't know what loose inspiration is. I guess that guy didn't make any sense. He was also another one of these atheist carcasses that the Quran and science has left behind. But I liked the questions because people are now coming to the conclusion there is something special about the science of the Quran. So people, so, you know, and I think just by the mere question which he asked, he's bringing himself, he's bringing his will to admit that. Now, you know, you have to forgive me because I don't know what loose inspiration meant, but this is my point. Atheists are now beginning to see validity in the Quran and science narrative. You got it. This one coming in from, I appreciate your question. Two seconds, so my computer is just spazzing here. Gregory 06 says, did you hear about the would-be train conductor that killed the engineer over failing his operator's exam? Talk about a locomotive. This one coming in from, I have to read him. This is from Abel says, let's see, sunflower needs to cope. Boris, that's a feud in the chat. Boris Kuduko, thanks for your question says for Nadir. Do you accept that Islam could have done it and yet be fantasy? That is everything you said caused people to do.  I don't think fantasy is gonna be able to bring three scientifically correct statements. So again, like this goes back to, we see this amazing thing about the Koran, when we see people coming out of the prisons, not committing crimes, not robbing your homes, not stealing your cars and doing all those terrible things, that's reality. You know, that's reality you have to deal with here. So that's why I say when you look at God, that's the most sensible option to explain the scientific miracle of the Holy Koran. Yeah, the Koran doesn't provide a cure for COVID or Ebola and to whatever extent it provides a preventative cure, it's the same preventative cure as don't do anything because you haven't demonstrated that Ebola and COVID came from eating the meat of things with fangs. But even if it did, that's not a cure for that. So stop, so you take something which would be reasonable to say, which is the Koran has a prohibition against alcohol and suggests that it might cause problems. Fine, cool.  That's simply not true. The Koran does not have a cure. The Koran does not have a cure for COVID or Ebola. It's a stopping exaggerate. There's no damage control here. It's called a debate. I'm not gonna let you get away with saying stuff that's not true. But thanks for interrupting. We don't wanna, I'm interrupting you because we don't wanna now debate it in the question and answer time, Matt, okay? You don't get to debate me just because you don't want me to say something. You don't get there interrupting just because you don't want to say something. You had your time for debate. Now it's Q and A. You should show up for the debate. I don't wanna start this debate over again when I gave you the opportunity. You don't get a debate over again. You didn't do anything this time. This one coming in from industrial nerd says, Nadir, what's wrong with bacon? Oh, okay. So the Koran prohibits pork, I think is the answer is a question. If we look at from a scientific point of view, you're not going to find really a whole lot there which is going to, which says bacon is wrong. This is a religious prohibition.   And I believe in that myself. One thing in fact, I thought which came to my mind, I think what would be a very good debate which maybe Matt would be interested is, Islam and slavery. I think that would be a very interesting debate and I would be interested to know if you would be willing to debate that, Matt. Is Islam against slavery or forced slavery? No, Islam and slavery basically. Is Islam forced slavery? Well, you debated Christians on the topic of slavery. Is Islam forced slavery? Why did you never answer the question that's asked? I'm sorry, your question, that's fine. Oh, I would say no. No, I'm not either, so there's nothing to debate. So I'm coming in from Anton Gomez says, Nadir, I'm no vegan, but would you advocate for the slaughter of animals during the Hodge to be banned? What about Matt? I think they're asking, what about Matt's opinion on this? One more time, because it said for Nadir at the beginning so I stopped after it was about bacon. Yeah, they said, would you advocate, or would you, like I said, I'm no vegan, but would you advocate for the slaughter of animals during the Hodge to be banned? I think they are saying, suggesting that it is. I'm trying to understand how that is really relevant to this debate tonight. So I'm just gonna pass, I just don't see the relevance of it. That's a good dodge. I would be opposed to banning slaughter of animals just for religious practices, yeah. This one from Mike Tyson says, Nadir, does the sun go under the throne of Allah? Yes, again, this is coming from the Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad, where it said that the sun actually prostrates under the throne of Allah. Now, by the way, that is scientifically correct. I wish it would have been raised in the debate, and I could show you how that is actually correct. The sun does make a prostration movement. And maybe later on, if I get time, I don't have any time right now to actually share. I could probably go into that, but it's simply not true, because science has nothing to say about the throne of Allah. I'm gonna have to go into it. So, but it's gonna take me a minute to pull up my notes here. So, I'm gonna give you a minute. As soon as you find any scientific findings that reference the throne of Allah, then you can say that that's close to true, but there are no science. There's no science about the throne of Allah. So what you're doing is massaging and interpretation to say that it prostates. But you said that science confirms that the sun goes under the throne of Allah. That's also not true. That is false. You can say, no, no, no, no, all you want, but come up with a science that references throne of Allah and that will prove me wrong.  Can I share my desktop? Ready? Okay, so I didn't talk about that the science is confirming the throne of Allah. I was talking about the movement of the sun over here. So, you know, this is talking about the prostration of the sun over here. Now, this is actually, it says over here, this is an article from earthsky.org. It talks about the sun, because you know, the sun also has an orbit. It says, you can think of the sun's motion as being more like a horse going up and down on a carousel. Okay, now that's very similar to prostration. Now, this is prostration, the sun prostrates under the throne of Allah. So that is actually in agreement with what we know with modern science. So again, you can just hit pause on your YouTube video, get this reference I got here, earthsky.org. And you can read more about this carousel movement of the sun. I don't see anything there about the throne of Allah. The throne of Allah is not something we need to prove scientifically. Well, then don't say that science proves that it prostrates under the throne of Allah and then say, we don't need to prove that part, because that just means you're lying again. I'm lying, all right. You are. This is from Jacob Grocek, says Nadir, it seems that you forgot to define Islam. Are we to believe that Islam is primarily about having knowledge of internal waves, talking ants, and the downsides of alcohol consumption? Yeah, that's true. I didn't really go into what is the belief of, you know, what I went straight into the evidence and that's on me, that's my fault. So basically to sum up very quickly, what is Islam? It is to believe in one God who doesn't have like these Kogads or other gods, demigods that you have to worship to get to that one true God. There's this direct connection with God. And the message of Islam, it's not a new message. This is something which all the prophets have came to teach from Abraham, Moses, and even Jesus himself. And the main focus of Islam, when it comes to the concept of God is to pull people away from the worship of other things, whether it's human beings, idols, amulets, and bring them to that one true God. This is how you're gonna get salvation and to believe in Muhammad as a true prophet, to believe in his books, to believe in the angels. And if you can believe in this and what God expects for you is prayer, establish the prayer, believe in this one God and don't worship anything else. Now Islam brings many compelling evidences why you shouldn't worship anything other than God himself. So that's in a nutshell what Islam is. And it would have been really cool if in a debate about is Islam true, you would have defended the truth of any of those things that you just defined as what Islam is, but you didn't. Not even close, didn't even address them. This one coming in from Chris G. Thanks for your channel membership support says, thanks Matt and thanks Nity here for being here. Howdy James, thanks Chris G for your support, that means a lot. And this one coming in from Goblin Lord X says, considering most leaven bread has alcohol content, why is this not restricted for consumption similar to drinking in moderation? And they said in parentheses, leaven bread, they said what most people think of when someone says bread. Well, I don't know too much about the science of leaven bread, but a lot of times when you cook, the alcohol actually gets, like for example, when you use alcohol in cooking like it was wine, the alcohol actually dissipates. So I'm wondering if this would be the same case in this regard, but is there really, if there's alcohol, which is something which can intoxicate you, then I would say you should not eat that bread and go for something which is alcohol free. Now I eat bread all the time. And as far as I know, there's no alcohol in it. But also it also goes back to if there's some medicinal purpose, if there's something to save your life, then this is something complete, then it's okay to consume alcohol for those purposes. This one coming in from, you appreciate it, Gregory 06 says, Nadir, you take results and parentheses lack of negative consequences from alcohol and apply it to the initial reason for the passage with zero evidence of intent, affirming the consequent. Same for your other arguments. Yeah, so this is another attempt to do damage control. So put it in a nutshell what he's saying is you gotta state the reason. If you wanna claim Islam is agreeing with science, give us the reason that he really meant to save all those children from fetal alcohol syndrome. So this is a reinterpretation spin. They're reinterpreting what it means to agree, okay? So this is part of that great Islamic debate victory because now it's not the Muslims who's playing the silly interpretation games. It's now the table have turned and now it is the atheists who are spinning and trying to create these ridiculous interpretations on what it means to agree with science. In Islam, it actually did give you the reason for alcohol ban, remember? The good of it, I'm sorry, the bad of it outweighs the good. That was word for word agreement with modern science. So in that case, yes, it did give you the reason but in many of the agreements with science, it didn't give you the reason but that doesn't change the fact that it did agree with science. So I think that's very interesting Now look who's the astonishing role reversal. Who is playing the silly interpretation game? Because normally what's supposed to happen is the atheist shows, look, the Bible has scientific contradiction in it. Then the Bible says, that's metaphorical, that's allegorical and they put this interpretation delusion. So one's giving fact, fact, fact. One's giving interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. Now it's the atheists who are playing that interpretation game. Yeah, atheists wouldn't bring up the Bible in a debate with Muslims. I don't know why you keep trying to do that but there's fantasy world that you're living in. There's no need for damage control when no damage has been done. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Jacob Grossek brought up the argument where he had said that the talking ants and the downsides of alcohol consumption don't seem to be central tenants of Islam and then said, Matt, for example, what are a couple of unique Islamic claims that a future Muslim debater might address or build a case for? I would say that it would be nice if, well, let's just go with what he just said, that the core principles or the core tenants or the foundations of Islam is that to believe in one God and to pull people away from worship of other gods and to, oops, I can't read what that one is but that Muhammad is the prophet and to accept the angels in the book, all of those things that he described as what Islam is would have been really nice if anybody would defend those things instead of what they're actually defending, which is some kind of conglomerate case that because of the 23 things in the book, these 17 are correct and not tied to those that we should just go ahead and accept the rest of those as well. That is fallacious reasoning. It's not my fault that it's a fallacy. Yeah, no, what you're doing, you're just coming up with reasons for running away from the science of the core.  This is not a debate on the oneness of God. If that was to be debated, I would have done that. Okay, for an atheist to ask me to defend that. You have to show up to defend your position to debate it. You know, the issue is why we believe in Islam and I presented the evidence. There's nothing wrong with it. No, the issue is not why to believe in Islam. The issue is, is Islam true, which you avoided? Based on the preponderance of the evidence, yes. This is coming in from Gregory 06. Says Nadir, we get diseases from eating other animals that Islam doesn't prohibit eating. Look at other religions that claim scientific accuracy and why you don't believe those religions, all ad hoc rationalizations like yours. So, I think the first question was, what about other religions having scientifically correct statements? Well, first of all, even if true, it would not change my argument. I have no problem with saying another religion which is scientifically correct. Well, that would only increase my belief that, oh, there is something supernatural out there. But I have looked at the other religions. The other religions are marred with scientific contradictions, scientific errors. And the proof is in the pudding. Look at here on modern day debate, where are the Christians? Why are the Christians not debating science in the Bible? You know why? Because they know that the scientific errors of the Bible are laughable and they're indefensible. That's why you could look as far as your eyes can see and all these Christian apologists that you see over here that they've got these big YouTube page, they will all run away from the topic of Bible and science. And they've got their so-called apologist reasons. So, and the first part of your question, I forgot the first part about this ad hoc. I need to keep you on track here. All right, let's see. I'm sorry. They, Jacob Grossig asks, Nadir on December 26th, 2004, there were earthquake-induced tsunamis that killed 227,000 people. Why do you think that God didn't have Muhammad prophesy of this event rather than on internal waves? Yeah, so now I remember, this is very much related to the first question. Why do these bad things are happening? A lot could have stopped those, but he just showed internal waves. He said, this is ad hoc reasoning that, you know, I forgot the ad hoc, what was the question on that? Oh yeah, there are other animals you can eat and those things will make you sick, if they're not condemned in the Quran. So the answer to all of this is God is under no obligation to give you the cure for diabetes or something like that. He's under no obligation to do all this wonderful thing.  So yes, Islam did not condemn everything, but that does not disprove that there's not a God. When you see evil things happening and terrible things, so the sum of what your argument here is, why do bad things happen to good people like earthquakes? True, these things do happen. And what we believe is that there are tests which happen in this world. And part of living in this world is passing this test. Okay, but that is true. So now we're going away from the science into philosophy. And so I think that's the best explanation of why we see bad things happen to good people. This one from Mike Tyson says, question to Nadir, Muhammad said to drink camel urine, but camel urine is harmful and causes M-E-R-S. Why is it halal and alcohol haram? I'm probably pronouncing those wrong, sorry about that. They say, what is the logic to this? That namely that alcohol is not allowed in that drinking camel urine is. So the misrepresentation of what our texts teach. I think all these so-called claims that camel urine, and this was for medicinal purposes. Let me share the hadith which you are actually referring to. So they will quote the hadith about to drink the urine of the camel, but they will hide the next sentence over here. They did so and after they recovered from their ailment and became healthy. So that part, they don't actually quote for you. So again, when you live in a desert environment, actually just let me go back one step. Just open your TV and you'll see other people be drinking their own urine. You'll see, and let me give you an example. You'll see all these survival experts like Bear Grylls and other than them drinking urine. Here is, here I wanna show you one case study. There's one guy, you know, he was, I guess stuck inside some building or something like that. I guess it's some building collapse. And I asked, well, how did you survive for so long? Students drinks, yeah, here's an article I'm talking about. Drinks urine to survive five days locked in solitary confinement without food. Okay, because 95% of the urine is gonna be water. So in a desert survival situation, okay, it makes sense. So the part about this from medicinal for it to save people in this environment, that part they skip. And then Islam teaches the drink urine, false. Please read it in the proper context. Look at the references, which I'm pointing out to have other people, and you can just turn on the TV right now and see a lot of people are drinking urine to survive in the desert. Yeah, except Bear Grylls is a fraud with no expertise, but you're right. Most urine is sterile or close to sterile. So I don't even disagree with that. I just find it funny that you decided to cite Bear Grylls, who's a TV show, a reality TV show star, who's a fraud, not real survivalist, as if that's science. That's not science, Nadir, not at all. It's from Jacob Grosek says, Matt, assume that Nadir demonstrated that the Quran did mention scientifically provable facts that cannot be explained by Nadir's COPS. Does this imply supernatural intervention? If not, what should our conclusion be? Yeah, if it did, our conclusion should not be anything supernatural. So I've done an entire video about supernatural claims. Supernatural claims are untestable and unfalsifiable, and at no point can we ever say we've ruled out all naturalistic explanations, therefore it must be supernatural. That is fallacious reasoning. It is not evidence for the supernatural. So the conclusion in the hypothetical scenario that you suggested is that we should conclude, we don't know what the explanation is. And saying I don't know seems to be the most difficult thing for religious people to do. Okay, so I like your last statement. I don't know what is the source of why we see all the scientific information, these great things in Islam. Let us agree on that. There is no natural explanation No, sir, I accepted a hypothetical. You don't get to take my acceptance of a hypothetical question and portray it as if I agreed with you that there's no natural explanation. I think there are natural explanations for everything you said. We tried to debate this. Okay, and I gave you ample time to answer the challenge and you do not get to saddle me by accepting a hypothetical question as if I accepted your point. What was the thing you were saying, Nadir? Yeah, the issue here is you got to provide a nap and I hammered Matt on this point. You got to provide some kind of natural explanation for all why a human being is making all these scientifically correct statements. We heard the debate. He wasn't able to do so. Okay, he backed away from that. And not him, but I was well, all the other atheists. So there is something which is unique and spectacular when it comes from a scientific point of view about Islam and atheists need to think about it, ponder over it and come up with a good answer. When you do that, you're gonna see God is very reasonable. No, we're not. That's a fallacy. I pointed it out. No matter how many times you say it, it's a fallacy. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Jordan Laborde says, Christianity says Islam is false. The Bible condemns the eating of meat eaters. These miracles are unhelpful to proving the case for Islam's veracity. So let me, let's just first make it very clear what the Bible actually says about meat consumption because I think you are wrong. See, there is good statements in the Jewish Old Testament but the New Testament comes and ruins everything. So basically Jesus removes all restrictions on meat consumption. Let me share my desktop here very quickly here. And so one of the reasons why Muhammad said it is to correct the scientific error of the Bible. So this is an article right here from God questions, very reputable Christian article. He goes in and you can read over here what did the Bible say about food? Jesus declares all food clean, later God gave the apostle Peter vision. The formerly unclean animals could be eaten. So basically, and this is a disastrous mistake. That's why in the next article, I'm gonna show you right over here. When you look at who's eating the monkey, who's eating the bats? They're Christians who are doing that. Let me get that article in front of you right here. Yeah, this one right here. This is Christians all over the world eating monkey and it grows by country by country. And sure enough, when you get to the Islamic world, this article actually, this is Muslims do not eat monkey because of their religion. And where do I have a link for this? I'll have to find my link. I can't find it. This is another article of this Christian woman eating monkey. Some librarian Christians eat monkey meat for spiritual reasons. So the point here is no, there are no restrictions on animal consumption in the New Testament. The New Testament removed all these restrictions causing the terrible pandemics to happen. Muhammad comes 600 years later and corrects his mistake. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Mojo Magic says, I donate this super chat for a debate between the same people on the same topic without a two minute back and forth and instead as just an open discussion. What are your thoughts out there folks? In the live chat, let us know if you liked it. That's not a good idea. If you're ambivalent. Yeah, open discussion would be terrible. That's sarcasm by the way. As we saw, Matt gets very angry when he gets cornered and so I don't want this. I haven't been cornered or angry Stop lying. It's obvious to everybody. I think we need an open discussion but we don't want it the same. Says, did you hear about the, we got that one? Hunter Avalon, good to see you Hunter. I hope you're doing well. Says, does Nadir know that filling in unknowns with God is just fallacious? No, it's not fallacious. What we are left with is that we have no natural explanation for all of the scientific evidence in Islam. So there is something which we have to explain how can a man 1400 years ago in the desert and he's supposedly based on our historical record he's an illiterate man, is coming up with all the scientific evidence. Not only that, but starting a scientific revolution to benefit all of humanity, helping all the prisoners and doing all this good. So we got to come up with an explanation for this and maybe you could say, okay, well you have to add a little bit of faith at this point. Well, considering the bulk of evidence now we can have faith that it is Allah who is doing all of this. And that's perfectly fine. This is faith backwards evidence, real hard evidence. But the question which the atheists need to explain if you are not saying that it's God who's doing this then you got to come up with a sensible explanation because natural explanations don't work for the supernatural attribute of this Quran. And if you can find me something smarter or better than God, I'm willing to listen to it. But I have to do it. Meanwhile, it is a fallacy and that's the sixth or seventh time you've asked how do you explain it? Even though you lied and said you didn't say that and now you're doing it again. Why do you keep lying? This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Imran, let me know if I'm pronouncing that right, says Hasnadir looked into science predictions in Hindu texts or other religious texts or from Nostradamus, for example. If so, how do they differ from the Islamic ones? And if he hasn't looked, why not? Yeah, so we'll start with the Hindus. Well, look here on modern day debate. Look wherever for the last, I've been doing apologetics since 1994. All of the Hindu gurus and monks, they've all ran away due to the scientific errors in their book because they cannot defend sati, the burning of women at the stake for being divorced. They cannot defend the caste system in their religion. They cannot defend all the things which we see in their religion in terms of scientific evidence. You don't have to trust me. Take a look and show me, where is Hinduism and modern science debate? They're all, you'll never find anything. It's Islam which is leading the debate on this topic. Why? Because we know our book is scientifically accurate. We know it's miraculous. So there's no point of considering that. There's no point of even having a debate on Hinduism and scientific errors because there are no Hindus to debate that. The gurus will never come forward because they know they're like the Christian. They know there are problems with their book. They know caste system is indefensible in light of all these people over here. So I hope that answers the question which you asked. Yudhaf Hikyus says Nadir, why didn't the Quran know that grown men marrying nine year olds isn't good for their health? So in the Quran, there is nothing about child marriages nor does Islam promote child marriages. Now, I would love to have debated that. And maybe there's some Christians or whoever wanna debate me on that, that's perfectly fine. But no, Islam does not promote child marriage. This one from Halfway Crooks says Spider-Man comics had a lot of true statements as well. Does that make them true in their core? Namely that Spider-Man exists. Yeah, Spider-Man or Bart Simpson. There's another example. Maybe that's a better example. Yeah, you will find some scientifically correct statements in these other books and some prophecies coming true from Nostradamus, I think what you meant to say actually there is the Simpsons, not Spider-Man, because there's nothing miraculous about that. Yeah, you will find some prophecies over there. But here's my point. That's all the more reason to assume that there is something out there, something which we can't explain, which is greater than ourselves, that is causing these prophecies to happen. So this is only, so now that evidence doesn't prove and show Islam is true, but what that evidence does show there is something supernatural out there. But what the Simpsons or whatever, Nostradamus, what they cannot do, they cannot produce all the scientific evidence in which I've presented to you and then start a scientific revolution which has benefited all of humanity. They can't do that. They cannot produce something that guides people in the prisons, millions of prisoners that changes their life for the better and that is also a wonderful benefit for humanity. The Simpsons cannot give you the cure, the preventive cure for AIDS, Ebola and all the evidence which we have seen tonight. This one from Talisan Oberlander says, Nadir, if the Quran is a source for preventative cures from any diseases, why didn't it protect the Muslim world from the black death relative to other groups of people? Well, actually it did. You know, there is actually Hadith, which I'll have to share with you sometime which talked about killing the rats. So this black death actually came from rats. But this goes back to the point where the point here is they're acknowledging the scientific evidence that yes, you do have these preventive cures, but what about the black death, as I have said before?  So when you do see something good, like what we found in Islam today, then you should be thankful, you should be grateful that Allah shared this with us and gave this wonderful cure for us. So the fact that it's not giving cures for other things doesn't disprove my evidence. This one coming in from, do appreciate it, Endo says, Nadir, in order to say it's more likely Muhammad's scientific claims are true, given God exists, you have to know the prior probability of God existing. What is that prior probability?  I've seen Matt's debates on, you know, on this as well. I can only watch one, you know, about does God exist? So, you know, if we were just to say, look at, you know, both case, I will be honest with you, both sides make good cases, but even if you look at it, the argument for that there is a God does make more sense. Okay, so the probability is that if you just look at it from that one point, the probability is more that there is a God out there due to the argument of the infinite regress.  And so, I think that's why it does not, so that does not contradict my conclusion here. And the most reasonable conclusion that there is a God out there based on the scientific evidence of the Quran. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. J.R. Ward says, Nadir, have you or will you consider that you might be wrong? Yeah, I mean, I tell you what, that's what I'm here for. Look, I'm here to debate. And I mean, if there's one person in this, you know, in this world who has considered this, who has studied the opposing arguments, it's the people who are doing debates, okay? So you cannot compare me to like say a preacher or an evangelist who just want to brainwash people. This is the antithesis of brainwashing, to do debates and go against atheist challenges, it just don't get no better than that, as the saying goes. So I'm the guy who is researching the counterclaim to see if Islam is right or wrong. The Quran and science challenge in which I presented with a great litmus test for it. That was a great falsification test, that the Quran is indeed in complete harmony with modern science. This one, finally a question for Matt. Free naturalist, thanks for your question said. I'm in the middle of a chess game. He said, do you uphold to any idea of what caused the universe into existence? No, I don't currently have an explanation for the cause of the current state of the universe. I'm happy to accept the scientific findings Big Bang cosmology seems to demonstrate a portion of it but we don't have a complete picture and we can't go back beyond the plank time. So as uncomfortable as it is, I'm not gonna pretend like other people that I know what caused the universe. I'm just gonna say that it exists. We've explored it as much as we can for now and we need new information to be able to explore further if that's even possible. I don't get to just say, oh, we've spent a lot of time on this. Now we gotta make up our mind. Let's use a little faith and say God did. You got it? This one from Ultra says, quote unquote, damage control is just pointing out fallacious garbage. How do you like them apples, Nadir? All right, this is coming in from. You know, they're throwing rotten tomatoes. So these are the atheists who did not like how this debate went. And so, you know, what's happening is now they're lashing out in these comments which they're presenting. But you know, one thing, an invitation I will have for Matt, I would like to see you upload this debate on your YouTube channel and I'll do the same. Would you be willing to do that? No, because it's part of modern day debates. But what I do is I link directly to it from my Patreon to this debate and I do it to promote the modern day debates channel. Do you want me? Okay, hang on. Are you daring me to upload this to my YouTube channel? James, can I have your permission to upload this entire debate to my YouTube channel? You have permission. Thank you. Let's do a poll and see how many atheists are remotely disappointed in how this debate went. Good luck, Nadir. Okay, thanks. This one. I'll upload it tomorrow. The inedible Hulk says, are you capable of saying quote unquote, Muhammad without the honorific peace be upon him? You do realize how tiresome it is to hear or see in every reference. Well, no, I don't think so. But that's kind of like off topic. This one coming in from Hunter Avalod strikes again, says it's not fallacious or if it's not fallacious, why can't we fill in the blanks with virtually anything? Can't we say magic did it, Nadir? No, I really do like this question because you could see that the questioner is now reconciling the scientific evidence of Islam. So he's coming up with other supernatural explanations for what we see in Islam. So this is really, really good question because now he has conceded the debate and seen the Islamic side. So now let me go ahead and answer that. Yes, that is one scientific, I mean, that is one probability, that's one possibility because now we need to talk about the supernatural. What's going on? What's causing this? But I think God is a better explanation. Why? Because magic is not going to give you the type of cures which we have seen. Magic is, you can't look at history and look at the golden age of Islam, which Islam, Muhammad started. You can't look at this, oh, that's all magic. Can you go into your university and when they teach, the every university teaches about the golden age of Islam, how Islam has benefited humanity and math, science.  It's the work of magic. You know, when you go to your professor and say, well, I see God's work in this. That makes so much more sense and your professor will probably agree. This one coming in from Dave says, thank you, modern day debate and to James for hosting these debates. And thank you so much to the speakers. Just want to say, just want to sincerely thank Matt for his patience with Nadir. This one, Jacob Grosek says, Matt, Nadir, thank you both for your time and discussion. Appreciate that, Jacob, as well. And thanks, Dave, for your support. And the inedible hope says, quote, filling in unknowns with God isn't fallacious, unquote. So natural explanations in the past 1500 years is just an inconvenient coincidence that God didn't cover before, Nadir. So we are not, you know, where we are here, we don't have any natural explanation for what we see in Islam. Coincidence will not work because coincidence, what it means is something unexpected. Oh, I'll get that right there. I just agreed with Islam. Yeah, one or two, you can count it off as coincidence, okay? But once you start seeing it happen three or four times, now it's no longer coincidence. Why? Because you just saw, part of what it means to be a coincidence is unexpected. You're surprised, look at this, it just agrees with science. Yeah, so no, coincidence will not work here because you just thought it happened three times or four in the past. How is it now that you're surprised on the fourth time it's happening? No, you are not. Now you're expecting the fifth one to come because you just saw it happen four times in a row. So coincidence cannot explain it, cops cannot explain this. So this canardal, you're just feeling an unknown with God. Okay, the issue here, I'm saying that's the best explanation here. Show me a better explanation. And so therefore that's where faith comes. Now Allah is asking you put some faith now. You see this is the best explanation, go with it. And that's where I put my faith. And there's nothing wrong with that. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Montmont says there's so many things wrong with Nadir's case. So I will just focus on one, mad cow disease, listeria, et cetera. Every form of meat consumption carries zoonotic disease risks. Why focus on bats and monkeys Nadir? It is not I who is focusing on bat and monkeys. It is science who is focusing on bat and monkeys. They are the ones I think I shared with you the article who are giving you the prohibition of not eating these animals. And I can share that article with you again. As for cows and mad cow disease, did science tell you not to eat cows? Sure you can get some diseases from this, but the good of eating beef outweighs the harm which comes with it. So from a scientific perspective, not eating cows is perfectly, I'm sorry, eating cows is perfectly fine, but I gave you the article about eating bats and monkeys. No, you should never eat these things due to the zoonotic diseases which jump from animal to man. Like mad cow disease. This one coming in from, and I did send you an email to Deer.  This is so like self-serving. I have to give credit to Matt because he links modern day debate. Every single debate, he's either uploaded it or linked it. And so I, though you have permission Matt, because it's always been that like you can upload the video, but frankly, I personally like it even more when you link it to us and ignore Nadir's challenge to quote unquote, post it on your own channel. I'll post it to my channel, but my Patreon, I'll link it to modern day debates to promote it. You got it, appreciate it. This one coming in from, Matt, Matt says there are so many things wrong with, oh, we got that one. Oh, by the way, is there a closing statement time or are we just doing questions? Yep, we've only got about, I anticipate about eight more minutes of questions. That's all we had for the format. Oh, okay, because I had some closing, but that's fine. If you guys would like, like would both of you guys like to do a quick closing? Let's just do question and answer. That's okay, just finish up the questions. You really don't want my closing going out on this debate. This one coming in from, the Inevitable Hulk strikes again and says, oh, we got that one actually. This one from Cameron Jensen says, Matt's gonna dunk all over Nadir by the time I listen to this, I will be at work and this will be done, but I already know who's going Dilla-Hunton. Matt's going Dilla-Hunton, okay. Is that a new meme? What are you doing? He's being a cheerleader. He's trying to, you know, cheer on his team, but you know, I have not heard any slam dunk arguments from Matt tonight. He should have raised that. Look, Nadir, Matt raised this with you and your argument was destroyed. Those are the type of questions I'm looking for. Yeah, well, it doesn't help because all they can say is what I've already said, which is that you're arguing fallaciously. You can't get through here for yourself. And you're deflecting and distracting. Let the audience choose your argument for that. And now you're trying to, now you're trying to interrupt my response to you just the same way you don't want me to give a closing remark, because you know you're going to get demolished in the closing remarks. Matt, let the audience decide if you really put in a good argument today. I do let the audience decide. What I don't let is you speak for me. I will keep talking over you if you keep trying to pretend that I'm not letting the audience decide. Of course the audience could decide. I can't force anybody to think anything, but don't be pretending that I'm the cowardly one when you are. You know, if you look at what the audience are questions are asking, they're asking, but how are we going to answer the supernatural attribute of the Quran? And we had many questions like that. So these are people who are actually, you're, I don't assume they're your atheist people, they're actually agreeing with the conclusion of the Islamic evidence here. So data, and I pointed out, I was really happy to hear that. Thank you. And we're now, the discussion is now headed in the right direction. How do we explain for them good reason, explanations for the scientific miracle of the Quran? And we've heard about magic. We heard about other things. And so that's really, it's a questioner's let the audience decide who is raising the good arguments here.  So let us first see what Islam says in relates to this topic. Okay. Let me pull up my hands over here on child rights here. Just be one second. You're not asking about what it says about child rights. They asked about Aisha. Yeah. You have like the last time this question came up too.  Congratulations, that's not relevant. It's a, the point here of the question is, is it seems like it's a do as I say, not as I do. You dodged it last time. Let's see if you dodged it this time. So let's see what Islam actually teaches in regards to who you should marry. It is true. Aisha at the time of marriage was nine years old to the Prophet Muhammad. Okay. Now back then child brides, this was something which was common. So this is not something which is just unique to Islam.  Does it say, okay, well, you know, you can just, this is something which is recommended for everybody. No, listen to this Hadith over here. It says, number one, it says over here, a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is sought. Now I got kids, you know, I've got a 12 year old, a nine year old, none of them are looking to get married. Okay. So this is going to prevent child marriage if you follow this. Now of course you try to coerce the kids that are going to marry him and like these stories which we read, that's not from Islam. Now this is another Hadith over here. Who should you marry? Are you suggesting that Aisha consented and that makes it fine? She consented to this marriage. Yes. And that makes it, that makes it fine. Is that what you're saying? That it's fine if a nine year old consents to marriage? Matthew, let me just, let me finish my position over here. Cause it's, what does Islam guide us? Your position is a deflection. I asked you a question. Okay. Yes. I would say that is fine because I'll explain the, but let me just finish. Cool. I'm going to go to the bathroom while you tell everybody how you're supporting child marriage. I'll be right back. Hold on. No, no, no, I'm not doing that. Matthew, please allow me to finish my point here. Okay. What does Islam teach for us? Okay.  As I saw, as I showed you from the following hadith, no. And let me show you another one over here. But just to be sure, I mean, just so we don't, I hate doing this, but just to be sure we get to the core of their question about Aisha. Yeah. Yeah. But that, but child marriage is the point which I'm making from the following hadith, I'm going to go very quickly over here. Do not marry women for their beauty, for mainly to their beauty. Who do you, could you marry? You should marry the women for their Dean, for their religion. So if you apply this test, this has never been applied to a 12 year old. This is never going to apply to a nine year old. If you apply it, the people who impressed you regarding their character and the religion are going to be adults.  This one coming in from, but, okay. But I think they're saying that to, I think the point of their question that was getting at like granting that Islam teaches you not to have a child bride. Like what's the story with Aisha? I think that's what they're saying. Yeah, that's true. There is a, you know, Aisha at the time of her marriage was nine years old. This is something which we believe Allah commanded Muhammad, whether he wanted to do it or not. This is what Allah commanded him and Allah commanded with Aisha to do this as well. And Allah's a monster. Hold on one second. Let me, let me talk. I'm not going to hold on. Allah's a monster. Oh, you can talk. I'll let you talk, no problem. You know, and so the point which I want to make is so this is something they're being obedient to a lot to follow his commands. Now, how is this good? Look, Aisha, we find out now, there's good reason behind that. Aisha was a gospel writer. It is because of Aisha, why we aren't even having a lot of the discussions regarding the heaths. She preserved the sunnah, or you could say the gospel of Muhammad and Bukhari, Sunan, Ibn Da'ud and all the references that you're going to find right behind me. So there was something very special about her and God used Aisha to preserve the message of Muhammad that today we are benefiting. Nine-year-old girls, they don't write Gospels. Okay, I can bring my daughter over here. You'll see her playing in our iPad. Is it nine years or six years? These girls do not do any of this. So there was something supernatural about that. And so there's evidence behind that decision. Was it nine years or six years old? It was nine years, consummated at nine. Consummated at nine, but married at six. And see, you wanted an example of something that the Quran gets wrong with regard to science. The Quran gets wrong with regard to science. This right here, the notion that a six-year-old is a reasonable age to consent to marriage is in violation of all science that we have learned about children and mental health and consent. There you go, there's your example. And that's not in the Quran. Number one, number two, what Islam teaches us is what I've shown.  No, I'm not defending it.  You literally did, you think Allah commanded it. That's a defense of it. You know what? You're saying it's fine if they consent. Now he's, okay, we can move on. The rest of the debate's over. Even if you had won, you're now a monster. No, I'm not encouraging child marriage. I'm telling you, no, you gotta get the consent. That's mandatory for marriage.  I wanna marry this. Keep talking, this is gonna look great. So Islam actually prohibits child marriages for the rest of humanity. Unless Allah commands it. Or unless you believe Allah commands it, which is what you said about it. No one talked to me. I like to hear from some Christian. Nobody should talk to you. They're not right now. Okay. This one coming in from Abel Medina says, you know what's possible to have a now, or I think they meant no, or no, they meant a now. In an infinite regress, right? I don't know too much about that now. I think they're meaning like if the universe is eternal, if there is an infinite regress, like you could still have a now moment. Kind of like a B theory of time, I think would fit within that. Yeah, no, I don't know too much about that. I'll let Matt answer that. I mean, I heard some debates he's had on these issues. It's probably better to talk about this. You say you've heard debates, but a little while ago, you said you'd listened to dozens of debates, and then you corrected yourselves, and you said you only listened to one. So how many debates in mind have you actually listened to? Matt, I listened to one of your debates. Oh. I watched your slavery debates. But before that, you said dozens, right? Okay, Matt, I watched it. And you said the slavery debate, and the God, and does God exist debate? Can you be honest at all? Yes, Matthew, please allow me to finish. When it came to the issue of concept of God, I watched one of your debates you had with the one Muslim guy, where you discussed the infinite regress. And I forgot his name. And then I also watched your slavery debates, okay, with Dr. Josh and all of them. And that's what I was saying. Hey, listen, you should look at some of the stuff we've done on slavery. So those are debates I've watched over here. I'm one of your admirers. Well, stop. It's not doing you any good. Eric Salas says, how does scientifically correct statements make the Quran true? Well, so it raises a question, a very important question is, wait a second, how is this guy getting it right every time? I mean, once or twice? Yeah, sure, no one cares. You could explain that through cops. So now that raises a question, hey, wait a second here. There is some, the only, this is, we cannot find a natural explanation for the Quran. So this leads to the probability. There is something supernatural out there, which is causing all this to happen. And so the best explanation for that supernatural, what we see is Allah is God. That's the best explanation. This last one, thanks very much for your question. Mat Mat says, not only married at six, but forbidden to remarry at 18. Yeah, so, you know, Aisha was very different. There were exceptions, which were imposed upon her, but as far as the Muslim world, the rest of humanity, no, if you follow Islam, you are not gonna wind up with a child right, okay? And based on the references, which I've shown you, you marry women based on their character and their dean. They know nine-year-old or 12-year-old is gonna impress you. You married them based on their consent. Okay, and also the most important is you better get her consent. Little children, they don't give you consent to marry them, okay? Unless Allah commands it. I actually asked my daughter, so she didn't want to get married at this age. Nobody, that's not in their minds, okay? Unless Allah commands it. But those days, but revelation has ended, so the good news is- Those days are over, so it used to be morally okay, but now it's not, some morality changed.  My apologies to James in advance for the fact that when I post this to my channel, it's gonna blow up. I'll try to direct back to you. Well, it's all damage control. It's not damage control.  You have no grip on reality. You're wrong about fallacies. You misrepresent what I said, what you said. You lie about which debates you've watched, which ones you haven't watched.  It is rape-involved.    Personal attacks, you started this debate with personal attacks.  Your position has made you a monster. No, I'm not. You started the attacks and you warned me before the debate started that you were gonna be coming at me hard and I'd better be ready. So, here you go, bring it. Okay, so what's going on here, the fallacy which is going on here, the thing where I can bring up the age of Aisha, it will invalidate all the scientific evidences which you've heard. No, sir, I didn't say it invalidated anything. You're lying now about what the fallacy is. I said that it's immoral on its face. I didn't say it had anything to do with your statement. You cannot be honest, sir. You cannot be honest.  It's disgusting. This personal attacks against me will not salvage this debate. There's nothing wrong- No, nobody's to salvage this debate. You lost it when you opened the debate. Okay. Gave says, Matt, thank you for what you do. You help rational people. How to rational, you help rational people know how to be rational in thinking about these subjects. Cool, thank you. I'm glad it was useful. And that looks like it's it in terms of our question list here. So, we're gonna let our guests, one last coffee breath, thanks for yours, says Nadir, what are the lamps? We're not gonna get into that. Go to my YouTube page. And actually tomorrow I will upload a discussion which I had a discussion and debate with an atheist on what are the lamps. But once again, this is another attempt to do damage control. They're trying to find error with a Quran. They're trying to find some way to disprove this, but it's not gonna happen. What I wanna point out is, look, talking about the age of Asia will not invalidate the evidence I presented, will not make it disappear or go away, which is now the strategy the atheists are going into. They're trying to salvage this some way, somehow, but these avenues will not do it. The scientific evidence will remain irregardless of what you believe about Asia. Irregardless is an award. This one coming in from, and that's it for our questions. Wanna say thanks so much, folks, for being with us tonight. And wanna say, as I mentioned, it is gonna be huge tomorrow. Perfect Dawa and our in-raw debate whether or not there is evidence for Islam. You don't wanna miss it. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And wanna say a huge thank you, folks, for all of your questions, for all of your support of the channel. Thanks for all your likes and all that good stuff. But most of all, thanks to our speakers. Matt and Nadir, it's been a true pleasure to have you here tonight. Thanks so much. With that, folks, stick around. I'll be back in just a moment with some updates on upcoming debates. So, stick around. I'll be back for a post-credits scene. Bison, my dear friends, I wanna say thanks so much for being with us tonight. Whether you be Muslim, Christian, atheist, you name it, we are glad that you are here. Thanks for being with us at Modern Aid Debate. And wanna say thanks for all of your support, you guys. This truly is a community kind of channel. In other words, it has helped in so many different ways because obviously the speakers are the lifeblood of the channel. We're thankful for the speakers. They have made this channel what it is in terms of we're just pleased that Modern Aid Debate has expanded across YouTube as we really do wanna give everybody a fair shot. We believe that the debates, the discussions here, they have kind of a certain special kind of meaning in the sense that when you say, wow, I was really more persuaded by that person in the discussion, it's because they were more persuasive, not because a moderator like me would jump in and kind of consistently take sides or something like that. I'm not saying that can't be done right, but I think that, like I said, when it's a truly neutral channel and I try to be as hands-off as possible in terms of taking any sort of sides, I think there's a lot more meaning in that because you see it's like, hey, it's because of the arguments from person A or from person B that were more persuasive. That's why I was persuaded, not because the moderator kind of jumped in and started making arguments as well, because I've really seen that where like moderators would do that. So wanna say though, we do appreciate it. Seriously, folks, thanks for all of your support. And as we are, absolutely, we are unashamed to the fact that we do wanna grow. Modern day debates, we are basically trying to grow as well as we can because we believe that we're providing something of value, namely we are trying to be as fair as possible to everybody, whether you be an atheist, whether you be a Muslim, a Christian, or many of the other many, many worldviews that are out there. We hope you feel welcome.  We are glad that you are here. And so we hope you learn something because there's a value in that as well. Namely, it's cool learning, you can hear two people, two different sides at the same time, how convenient, because don't get me wrong. Like we said, it's totally cool that there are essay, you could say essay type channels, like channels that have their own positions that are euphoric of position consistently. We don't think there's anything wrong with that. However, we know that it's like, hey, sometimes it's convenient to hear both sides at the same time. And we think there's a value to that because maybe you're like, well, I ran into this person and I never imagine this potential scenario. If you're like, oh, I didn't know what to say to their arguments because I had never heard their position before in actuality. Is when you really get to hear it firsthand and also hear the, you could say not the rebuke, the refutation, the response to it, it gives you a more well-rounded kind of look at that position rather than if you had never heard that position directly make their case like you do here. So I want to say thanks so much for being with us. Hello in the chat, secular strategy. We're glad that you were here. Killa, one, two, three, four, five, six, zero. Happy to have you as well as thanks Tim Durand. Thanks Tim for your feedback. Says James, you did a fantastic job. I don't envy your position, especially when things get so spicy. Thanks, that really does mean a lot.  So I appreciate you saying that. It means a lot. And I'm embarrassed to admit that, that like after 800 debates or something, I still get that feeling or I'm like, oh, this is hard. I don't know what is, you know, I'm trying to say the right thing. But the game, three, nine, two, five, thanks for coming by. Francis H, glad to be, glad to have you with us. Lieutenant Gregory Stevens. Thanks for coming by. Says I'm an Ed Powellist. As well as Omer DHK. Thanks for dropping in. Richard Taylor, glad you're here. Count Dracula. Thanks, thanks so much for your support. Says hope you reach 100,000 soon. We really do believe that I'm anticipating probably by May or so. We probably will reach the 100,000 mark, which is really exciting. So thank you guys for your support. Seriously, we mentioned that the speakers are the lightblood of the channel, but you guys help so much. And I'm very serious about that. There's so many different ways. Here are just a few. One is thanks for hitting that like button I saw. We are up to 387, 388 likes now. So thanks so much for that support. You guys might just think like, ah, it doesn't make a difference. I actually think it does and even dislikes.  The reason it makes a difference is because YouTube's seeing there's more engagement. People are actually kind of like, you could say invested in the content. And so when you do hit like, or you could say you hit dislike, it shows that you're like, hey, this got a reaction out of me, whether it be good or bad. And so we do appreciate that support as that helps this video to get ranked, for example. So like let's say someone types in is Islam true debate or discussion, whatever it is. It's more likely that this video will pop up first in their feed, when they search for that, if it has more engagement. So things like hitting share, that helps a lot too. So we wanna say thank you for doing that. I actually, I constantly check the stats and the YouTube creator studio for modern day debate, like for real, like so many times a day, it's probably not healthy. But the reason is I'm trying to