حوار ونقاش محمد المغترب مع الملاحدة حسن عيسى وفري مايند في مسألة هل القران كلام الله كلوب هاوس

Okay, I will translate the entire text from Arabic to English, adhering to your rules.

Alright, I'm leaving for half a minute, as some people are having trouble entering, apparently. [Music] We're not going to bring anyone up or anything. I wish it would be by your choice. [Music] See, um, the time, I'm not, not at all, not at all. One minute. [Music] The expatriate should come down. Maybe I'm ready. I want, I mean, I don't think there will be time in the sense of time, but I prefer this, honestly, to be time from both sides and with complete neutrality. We don't need to be judged from this side, nor judged from that side. The most important thing is that there is a discussion, of course, if Mr. [Music] None of you, I don't know, half an hour to speak, and the other, if it's Mr. Muhammad, just have the evidence, meaning the core of the matter, our evidence that so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, this is our evidence for the claim of so-and-so. Personally, I'll prefer to listen, honestly, but I see that we shouldn't prolong this any further. The expatriate told me, "Get a room, let it be between you and me, and he will tell me the evidence that the Quran is the word of God." If you want to answer the previous question, welcome. If you want to present your argument, welcome. When you grow up, what is it for? May God benefit you. Okay, if I told you there are two options now: to talk here now, or to talk privately, and both options are available to you and me. On my level, discussing privately would be better. You would reply to me and say, "No, I want a public discussion," right? Definitely, definitely. I want to benefit. And since I'm speaking, for example, about something, it's natural that you would object to my words, right? If there are things that are not convincing to you, I will clarify to you that these things are not convincing. Certainly, there are people in the room who may agree with you on some matters that you object to, because since it's something illogical, they will surely agree. Not necessarily members, of course. Certainly. Well said. I don't need any proof of prophethood at all, nor the Quran's evidence for the Quran being the book of God, because whatever challenge I present or discussion between you and me, it's certainly a comparison. I am not a prophet, nor are you a nation, right? Certainly. Neither I am a prophet nor are you a nation. In that case, I am only obligated. Certainly, certainly. Let's just be complete. In that case, the fact that this context is natural in my claims, then it is more likely for the nation to object to prophethood. What do I want to say? I want to say that anything that inherently carries the means of its refutation, it is natural that when challenged, people will resort to those means of refutation. But you could have said that in the previous room. You told me, "I will bring you the evidence from the Quran, the word of God." I want to know. When you say, regardless of whether I say it and you believe it or not, okay, where is the evidence? In this universe and humanity. Otherwise, the belief of so-and-so, or so-and-so, or so-and-so, whatever the words are, it's not about great Islam. One lacks these claims, lacks evidence, otherwise you will be equal to the rest. From today onwards, you will stand next to your Baha'i brother, your Christian brother, your Hindu brother, saying that you are better than them, or superior to them, or more logical than them, or anything. You must show, you must give me. Your voice is gone. Your voice is gone. Can you hear me? Can you explain what I said? While the team returns. I'm back, everyone. I just want to say that if four or five people are standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out of your hand?" No, but I challenge you to make fire come out of your hand. What is the connection between me clapping and making fire come out of my hand and you being the maker of the car parked there? What is the connection? What connects someone who makes fire come out of his hand and he knew how to make a car? I don't know. No, you are claiming now that the Quran is a challenge. This challenge is within it. Whoever cannot bring something like it. This book. So, we built the universe. We created man. Whether I can write a book like the one you are holding in your hand or not. Is this evidence that you created humanity? By making fire come out of your hand? There is no direct relationship or necessity that someone makes fire come out of his hand and that there is a car made. This is true. But when someone comes and says, "This Quran is from God Almighty," and "This Quran, it is impossible for humans to bring anything like it. I challenge you, if you say this Quran is from humans, then bring something like it." So, your example does not apply to what I am saying. And not only that. It's not just about the Quran. Because if it were just about the Quran, then you are a scholar, I am not a scholar of language, nor are you a scholar of language. So, on what basis is the challenge of the Quran's miraculousness, even from a linguistic perspective alone, certainly not only linguistic. It's more than one thing. But even from a linguistic perspective alone, we are not the judges, nor is anyone other than you and me the judges, except for the specialists in language. So, the fact that this challenge was presented to the linguists themselves prevents you from. Notice here that the necessity is the same. The necessity is the same. That this Quran is the revealed one. What is the connection of this to someone making fire come out of his hand? You are mistaken. Look, my friend. You have blocked many people. I wish you would unblock them. I am very, very sorry, but people want to hear. Okay. That the Prophet Muhammad is in contact with the deity of this code. He told him, "I will send you a book that no one can write like it." If no one can write like it, then this book is from the entity that created the universe. And because he knows how to write, no one can write like him. So, we are assuming now that no one will be able to write. Is it because no one can write a book? Is it because someone knows how to write a book in a way that no one else can do? Does that mean he knows how to create humans? How did I confirm that the entity from which the messenger of humanity came is indeed the one who created the universe? That he wrote a book that we don't know how to write. My example, by the way, and the one who wrote the book. The difference. [Applause] I took language as an example. When I spoke, I told you the story is not just language. If the story is just language, then I am not a linguist, nor are you. So, on what basis? Certainly, that's not what's intended. I clarified that. I'm not talking about the story being just language. The story is many things, many readings, all converging on the fact that this messenger is truthful. All these readings together, whether from miracles, whether from the miraculous text, whether from him being illiterate and carrying the Quran, whether from the events that happened to him, whether from the legislative system he brought. All of these together. The question here is, with all of this, there is a challenge. With all of this, there is a challenge. The fact that this news reached you, or that this religion reached you in this way and spread in this manner, while it carries within it the challenge that refutes it, what makes people fight? What makes them do all of this? What makes it reach you? It shouldn't reach you. I already objected to it reaching you. It shouldn't reach you. It won't wait for you until you come today in the 15th century to object to it from its land. It's like many claimants. But imagine any magician today coming and saying, "Come with me." Certainly not. Why don't you believe him? Because, first of all, he wouldn't challenge humanity's ability to do the challenge. This is someone exposing himself to ridicule by people. No, he challenged and more than once, and all his prophecies about the unseen came true, as they are. And in a few years. Is this not a challenge? [Music] That they were defeated. We submit. As long as we were able to submit. The question here is, the question here is, the argument from the beginning when I entered, I told you if it carried the challenge with it in this way, in the situation we know, and you know about all Muslims, how did it reach you? So, you don't need to ask here. Where are the rooms? Because those who were present asked. You understand what you're saying. Do you expect that because 500 years ago it was written in your book, "They asked, and he answered them, and he showed them, and they rejoiced"? For example, for example. It's correct for you, but understand the verse in the Quran that says, "Say: 'It has been revealed to me that a company of jinn listened, and they said, 'Indeed, we have heard a wondrous Quran.'" Do these jinn exist? Should I go meet them and verify if what was said on their tongues actually happened or not? I'm telling you this because two days ago, you entered. Two or three days ago, you'll find the sister who came to prove to us that the Quran is the word of God, telling us, "By the way, the evidence that this is the word of God is that jinn heard it and were amazed by it." On the basis that we have seen jinn, and jinn actually said the same thing. I'm sorry. So, this is a very low level to tell me that someone came and told me this. On the contrary, on the contrary. You haven't disagreed with her. You are claiming that people before 400 years saw for themselves that the Romans were defeated and were defeated. So, we have believed. I know. I'm telling you this. Please understand what I'm saying. Historically, it shows that the Romans were defeated because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility, because this is a possibility. The question is clear. I'm telling you. Listen to me. There was someone 1400 years ago who lived, ate, drank, and slept. A weak possibility. The news from him and all of it. [Music] By God, it's shameful. The man didn't open his mic. You're talking. The man wants to listen. Go ahead. No one will interrupt you. Please. That I'm sitting up here is your problem. I entered and closed the mic. My dear, my dear. The matter will be lost like this. It will be lost like this. If he comes down, I'll continue the discussion. If he doesn't come down, peace be upon you. I'm coming to you, Farida. Personally. [Music] Side by side. Okay, with yourself. Who, my dear? Speak well. Just, expatriate, expatriate. Don't laugh at this part, please, and move on. The man, my dear, and I want to discuss with you. So, for the sake of God, okay. I'm sitting. Okay. But let him come down. Let me be with Mr. Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad, the room is at 300, and they are listening. Do you understand me? And they want... No one opened the mic, and no one spoke. Do you understand me? Or neither of us opens the mic and speaks between you and Farid. The matter is simple. [Music] This man, I have a problem with him. Let him come down. You curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. That you curse me, Muhammad. This is the problem. It's not from me. No, never. I'm talking. I have no problem with him. He no longer has a problem. Why don't you answer the question? You have evidence that the Quran is the word of God, right? Go ahead. Present the evidence you have that the Quran is the word of God. Your claim that the Romans were defeated and they will be defeated after they were defeated. I, where is the confirmation? Someone tells me that so-and-so, when he raises his hand, can do it. Okay, I haven't seen him with my own eyes touch or not touch. I don't know. Do you notice, everyone? Fire. About what? Oh, you're going to branch out. Let's continue the discussion. Come down. You're not here, Muhammad. I want to continue the discussion now. Please. Please. It's very strange. Because I was saying that Al-Razi came out for me. That's a good institution. That's a whole book. There isn't much between you and me like before. It won't make a difference. And for me, it won't make a difference either. So, okay. I have no problem. I'll close from here, and you open. I'll bring you. But the issue of the room being upstairs, we won't continue. And all of you, Muhammad's mother, my dear. The conversation is back and forth. Mr. Mani, consider him as if he's not here. Consider him not here. Continue the discussion. We are benefiting. Continue the discussion. He had nothing happened. That's it. Don't be. We're not going to ride. You entered with good intentions. You entered with good intentions. Okay. Let's go, girls. You and me. Okay. Thank you. Where were we? The last point. There's a sound. Ah, there's a sound. Maybe it's a problem. Farid is present. Farid, everyone. I, I just want to say that if there are four or five people standing in front of me, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Shia, a Sunni, whoever. If one of them sees himself as better than them, having something more than them, but he is like them, they didn't bring evidence, and he didn't bring evidence. They don't have reason or logic. They have claims. I don't want to say something that might offend, but they have illogical things, and he also has illogical things. He has miracles, or claims the existence of miracles, and so do the others. So, what is the difference between you and them? What makes you better than them? Is the meaning clear, everyone? I want to know. I want to know what makes you superior to those around you. This is about all beliefs, right? You should tell me. All of these, certainly. You and I agree that all the rest are wrong, and you are the only one. [Music] I mean, I stand with you. I don't need proof. Christianity is wrong. I am compelled. I agree. And so on. I agree with you that I and you, I mean, if I'm discussing with a Christian, and the Christian tells me Islam is wrong, I'll say, "Okay, and then what? It's not your business. It's not your concern whether Islam is right or wrong. Your concern is to prove to me that Christianity is right." Do you understand my point? With the same logic. From the beginning, I presented a simple scenario. That when I challenge you with something, I'm supposed to prove it. It's natural that when you see any logical flaw in what I'm saying, you'll object and point out that this is incorrect or wrong because of so-and-so. It's natural that all the people in the room will have a comment on this. Therefore, if there is a mistake in my words, a logical mistake, a contradiction, it's natural that when I leave this room, people will leave with me, an equal number who agree with me, and perhaps more. What do I get out of all this? Some people think I'm speaking in a scared voice. "Oh, we are adults. We are adults." Go ahead. The new idea, a monotheistic religion. It's Islam, the last one after Christianity and Judaism. [Music] Before Islam, talking about the Baha'i faith. The Baha'i faith, in what they claim, they consider themselves, they consider themselves, based on the Quran and Islam. Christianity says that about you, by the way. But wait, wait. You know, just as you see the Baha'is, by the way, this atmosphere won't work. Yes. So, for me, I don't need to disprove all of this. The matter is very simple. One of these Muslims claims that there was a prophet named Muhammad bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. He claimed prophethood, and it was revealed that this prophet, through him, miracles occurred with this Quran. The question here is, does this religion carry the challenge within it? Does it carry the challenge in more than one context? The question here is a natural question for any of us to ask ourselves: How did this challenge pass by unnoticed, while it carries the complete refutation of the religion, until it reached you today, after 15 years? Here, the issue is that you denied the situation that should have existed between you and me. The situation that exists now, by the way, is that I have sources of knowledge: senses, intellect, and truthful news under its conditions. You might say, "I don't believe in news." Your choice. My whole life is based on it. So, your problem won't be with me. If a prophet appeared and claimed prophethood and had miracles, and so on, you would eventually believe or not believe. So, if we imagine now, through transmitted news, that it reached you in the case of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and you saw these miracles, or claims of them, and what happened. Would you believe then or not? And for you, if you tell me, "No, I wouldn't believe," then I have nothing more to say to you. Your choice. There's nothing more. From the first word I said, I was giving you مقدمات (preliminaries). This is from God. Preliminary. Beautiful, beautiful. The evidence, I don't know, honestly. You yourself, expatriate, how did you confirm that the news is true? I don't know. A group testified to a group. A group said to a group. A group saw. A group knew. A group agreed with a group that a group saw. A group said to a group that this group doesn't lie. What is this? What does this have to do with reason and logic? I don't know. My life's desire is that this book, someone challenged it, and this challenge is within it. This challenge is ongoing. Where is the evidence? When I challenge you, when I say, "What is your evidence that you built the car parked there?" And you say, "When I clap, can you make fire come out

There are people who believed in an idea, not just more than you. [Music] For the servants of the cross, no, that's not proof of anything, and it doesn't mean that religion, for example, doesn't mean that there are many people. That doesn't mean it's right. I'm very eager for what you're saying. You impressed me more than your entry. Just as you completed and didn't enter empty. The difference between you completing your entry alone and you killing and my words to be disgusted by it. You intended all the words, and when it's finished, tell him, if you came to my words and did one, two, three, then the fact that you claim that there are many people, and people said he's a sorcerer and said he's crazy, all of that is proof of the matter itself. The claim from the Quran. We have readings with different words. For example, I have a Mushaf at home for Warsh, and the two are different. Here are missing words, and here are words like this. He's a great boy or something. It's a prayer. I can prove it to you. I can now. Tell me, photograph page number X from Mushaf Y or verse X from Mushaf Y. I'll photograph it for you on the profile now. [Music] Other than the Mushaf in Egypt, very simply. So this is not a prayer. I have proof. [Music] Those who are stingy with people. This sentence might be at work. But the part where you tell me, "Well, this reached, and this reached." So let it reach, people of good. What's the idea? Don't tell me that this reached, that's an argument. And don't tell me that this is prophecy, that's an argument. Bring all the evidence together and show me. You can't tell me someone came with something in a place and it turned out exactly as it was. That's the support, and that's it, boss. So what's my fault? This really has nothing to do with it. But when someone claims this, it's associated with claiming prophethood and associated with challenge, and it's repeated more than once. No, excuse me. Whoever denies this, I don't need to talk to them at all. As you wish, man, don't be upset. Come on, you have a market in experience, but there's no teacher, there's no proof of it. You have faith. You have faith as a layman that the universe is matter, I don't know what, spacetime, and all that. For you, these are beliefs. Beliefs. Momentarily. And yet, you believe in them. So when this abstract mental state, without any interference, without any assumptions, without any of this, which is a lived reality, and for you, you can do as you please. I don't mean by that that you are right. Why me? But well, it reached, Mr. Mohamed, in 50 other places to make sure. So science has nothing to do with it. We believe in science that proves itself. There is no comparison here at all, Mr. Mohamed. Whatever is present and returns to complete his intervention with you, I don't know. [Laughter] Also, if Farida, Doctor, Mr. Mohamed, on my eyes and my head, welcome. But I want a scientific paper that proves this. I am a man who understands very well. The previous ones followed what you said. Unfortunately, Mohamed, you haven't given any proof at all. Your words were just emotional words without any proof and without any justification. And if I ask you, what kind of proof did you consider yourself to have lied? You won't be able to tell me. But I'll put it aside. I considered it first-year talk, or even Eid month. But the issue of science, you say we believe in science. Belief, Mohamed, meaning listen. I'll ask you a question. I told you to answer. You talked about science in logical premises. Tell me, how is your talk? My question, son, don't beat around the bush. Answer me. My question is simple. You said science is belief. What is the difference between something tested and something testable and something not testable? Answer the question. What is the difference? It has nothing to do with the subject. My question is simple. You are distorting my words now, Mohamed. Yes, of course. That means listen. Don't put Newton anymore. Listen to what he's trying to convey to you. Science is belief. When we ask these people, what is the difference between something tested, something testable, and something not testable? Why? [Laughter] Talk generally about Newton's methodology. Mohamed, either answer my question. Please, please. About the question. Is science testable or not? Yes, of course, it's testable. Is the testable thing considered belief, Mohamed? Yes. For the layman who won't test it, your mistake. Belief, everyone, is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. There may be proof, or there may not be proof. The difference between beliefs, especially belief in the unseen, religious terms, is that they are not testable. Among the conditions of scientific proof is testability. For example, among the conditions of scientific proof is the possibility at the end of every term, it is the possibility of repetition, the possibility of testing, the possibility of reproduction, the possibility of verification. What is the difference between possibility and possibility? Meaning, if you wanted and had the required tools and the ability to do something, you are capable of repeating it. Meaning, there is no obstacle in the proof itself that it be verified. Experimentation. So it is possible. And all that is possible in science, if it is at the experimental level, has a condition of possibility, and even possibility. As for belief, have I tested it? Am I capable of testing it? Is it tested? Yes, it is tested. Was the method of experimentation? Yes. So, as a layman, are you obliged to experiment? Here comes the matter according to the obligation you want to take from it. Meaning, you take in your lives the news, even Newton, Mohamed, please. Never. Because you are balancing between the mechanism of control and the result of this news. Meaning, if someone tells me, for example, "Mohamed the expatriate sent you something privately," I am not obliged to verify. Why? In my private case, for example, and I didn't find it, I lost nothing. But the more a person increases in this matter, the more the necessity of control increases. So someone tells you, "I will guarantee you that you believe in God and tell you all your words are true." [Music] The transmission that has no value. So he tells you, "Here you go, you want to believe in it, and not the one who told you to believe in it." Belief, for example, the cosmic. If you want to verify the cosmic frequency, are you capable? Yes, Mr. Mohamed, you are capable. If you are capable of it and you don't want to be, Mr. Mohamed, with all due respect, but the layman you are talking about, if he is capable of it, then it is his problem, and there is nothing obliging him. Someone must come and make him believe. Oh, I don't believe it, it's normal. I have no problem. And yet, he is capable of verifying this matter. So, Mohamed, don't mess up the issue of science because all your words are wrong. I don't even have to refute it. Oh, because this is outside the context. I want you to be a little logical. A few seconds. Before you let me speak, or not? Dr. Hassan, please, in front of everyone. It didn't repeat, and it didn't repeat with you at all. It's not up to you. Your words are wrong, Hassan. Your words are wrong. Mohamed, calm down, because your style is this, and I respect you. Who muted me? Let me speak. Hassan, at this point, I challenge you. The illusion, old man. Who told you, son of a dog? Let me speak, man. God bless you. Okay, go ahead. You're trying not to beat around the bush too much about people's words. Please. [Music] Just a little. Take your time, Mohamed. But please. What I heard him say from the beginning. First, he took a man like that. Actually, Mohamed, my words were not from that angle. My words were for a free mind. You, as a layman, anyone now. You mean by this talk. No, no. A specific direction. That he directs the talk as if I am criticizing the scientific methodology or not believing in science. And he gets into it and gets lost in his imagination. I have nothing to do with all of that. My words themselves are about how we verify. How do we verify? The idea here, glory be to God, you proved something that I've been trying to hide all morning. That when you said, "If someone came to me and said, 'I don't believe in you,' I wouldn't believe him." And that's correct. But if you want to experiment, the idea here is what? In the necessity itself that makes a person believe when there is evidence for it and ways to invalidate it. Don't make a scientific argument as if I'm objecting. Who told you I'm objecting? I'm not objecting to that. My words are about the layman who is discussing with me. When he talks about something else related to science, a word like "a camel" or "people said so," he doesn't look into it. Yes, there is a possibility of verification. There is a possibility of testing. But he doesn't look into it. That was the point of my words. You took me into scientific methodology and had a long, wide discussion without any need. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong. My words are right. And the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida. You made a scientific argument and had a long, wide discussion for no reason. But let's see, what's the mistake? Go ahead. Actually, my words are wrong, my words are right, and the wrong one is. Before I move on from the point you asked about, my words in front of everyone are correct. He is the one who cut off, Mohamed. You want to create something for yourself to make a whole movie about. You said that we believe in science, belief, like the proof I give you, or its value is nothing. Before I move on, I'll give you your logically wrong words. Where is it? Is my words that I said in response to your words that science is belief, that the proof, etc.? Are my words wrong in terms of the definition of belief being wrong? Define your correct definition of belief. Please. In front of everyone. Only the belief. The belief is the affirmation of the truth of something without the need for proof. If there is proof, or if there is no proof. And the room is recorded. So if he tells me his definition of belief is wrong, he redefined it. My God, you are logically wrong, my dear. This is correct belief. Correct. And I didn't object to that at all. I am in front of everyone. Meaning, if there is proof or no proof, then this is belief. Twice your words are wrong. And he redefined his words. So, the issue of science is that science does not accept belief without proof. It does not accept proof. Proof has verification. So your words that science is belief are wrong. My God, you are wrong and lying to me. My God, for the fourth time, and I'm telling the truth. Where to? Go ahead. Go ahead, everyone. Maybe the person who is layman, you as a layman, for you, scientific issues or scientific theories are beliefs for you. Is that right? That was the point of the talk. He trusted this person in the scientific community. So, this state of belief, everyone, is a state of affirmation, as I defined belief. The issue of proof or lack of proof. Does it have a relationship? Does the scientific methodology, that science is testable, falsifiable, and all that, does this have a relationship with the layman? Of course not. The layman today, if Dr. Naseem enters and hears, and hears information, for example, from Dr. Naseem or Dr. Moataz or any of these people, this information for him is somewhat believed. And if he hears it from more than one person, or something, it's believed, regardless of the proof. This was the point I meant when I was talking to Farida.

You are acting like you are recording, so it is a strange thing in front of everyone, just like you withdrew the first time because you are wrong. Withdraw it because you cannot, no matter how much you try. I will go, my right is on me. I will not be happy again. Consider yourself disabled. You withdrew your words so that I can ask you again. You will not be able to answer it. Your words are binding on people, and it is a way of throwing an excuse. Someone presented us with scientific evidence, or people said that this statement is not subject to abstraction, so it does not affect the validity of the statement. It does not affect the validity of the statement because scientifically, if you say my words are not verifiable and I present them as experimental scientific evidence only, because if you remember, at the beginning of the room, I gave you its conditions. No, by God, you literally say that the inability to verify something or to re-experiment something does not affect the validity of scientific evidence. By God, it is strange. And basically, from philosophy, if I cannot prove to you that so-and-so, then my words are wrong. The evidence is not invalidated, but the person is invalidated. But it's simple. Whoever wants to consider that the fallacy of narration as a narrative cause benefits knowledge and verification, then let him take it into epistemology. We come to the third topic that I asked you about, the topic of transmission. O people, I am telling you, since I am repeating it for the second time, since the first layer's validity has been verified, the news has become true, my dear. Who transmitted the words of the first layer to you? And are the layers between you and them, meaning if one of these layers is false and told you that the first layer was true, how would you verify it? And then I bring you, it doesn't matter if they were all Muslims. All the legends transmitted about the miracles of the ancient gods were transmitted in this way. The things that were transmitted among the ancient Egyptians 3000 years ago were also transmitted because it was one religion. This lie might be tolerated, either emotionally or intentionally, unintentionally. If you have not proven the transmission, and all of them and the representation in the resurrection are not important, the first method is important. Nevertheless, yes, it confirms that Muhammad said that. But the more important question that I have asked you five times and you have not answered: If Muhammad claimed that or challenged people with something specific, what is the logical obligation from God? Answer, Muhammad, one of them. You withdrew it, I forgave you. The answer is still with you. Do your words imply obligation? Does your statement imply obligation? And what is the obligation of this commitment that you are obligating people to? Second, third, if people are incapable because of this, is this evidence that he is truthful in everything he says? What is his logical obligation? Go ahead and answer, or withdraw them to the rest of the questions. Okay, thank you. Okay, without without a person and without anything, has anyone here heard me say that the most important thing in transmission is the first layer? Has anyone heard me say that? Or was this an objection to his words because he doesn't understand transmission and says all layers are Muslims? I am repeating the words again, and the words are not understood. Really not understood. He was objecting, saying, what transmission do you rely on if those who transmitted it are Muslims? All layers are Muslims, so they might agree on lying. By God, by God, by God, if we only used reason, we wouldn't say it. Do you know what it means, guys, for someone to say that Muslims colluded in lying? What is the lie that Muslims agreed upon? Their religion, their religion, which they are Muslims, or the evidence of their religion. Because they are religious in the religion, they transmit its evidence with lies from the first layer. So he is truthful from the first layer, and therefore every layer after that is done. If this was a response to his words when he says that all layers are Muslims and they are deceiving, not to mention that this is a contradiction in itself, because you are between disbelief and faith in one person, one person. [Applause] What is this blatant contradiction and what words? As for the part where people say again, again, I will never understand that transmission implies a transmitted report through senses. The senses' report is true only, as we gave the example a while ago. Whoever comes out of here will say Muhammad spoke with Hassan. Muhammad said this. Hassan said this. Any other judgment that has a scientific experiment, what is it? It is certainly something observable and tangible. So this observable and tangible thing is naturally observable again, or even if it is not observed again, the important thing is that this group transmitted a true report. Now, the jinn, and I am speaking, I said it is impossible for there to be an obligation that combines opposites or results in an intellectual impossibility. Therefore, here is the question: Does the transmitted report imply truth or not? If the answer is yes, then the obligation follows, and this report is true. If the answer is no, then your epistemology is yours. Go ahead and say to your uncle, go and say to your uncle, this scientific conclusion that you adopt, or this belief in science, or that science has reached such and such, be aware that it is not true. It is true before the experiment, but you will never go down. You will never go down. You will never go down. This is nonsense. Again, again, the part where he says, what is the relationship? What is the relationship between someone who predicts something and it happens? He thinks the Prophet, peace be upon him, or any news of the unseen from the Prophet, peace be upon him. [Music] He did not challenge anything, nor was it accompanied by anything. A person claims a claim. Likewise, regarding the creation of custom, one might say, I see magic as supernatural. Yes, but magic is normal. This is their job and it is found everywhere. Then the magician does not have the prayer. Likewise, between them and the reading. This is nonsense. It is a shame. The question I am asking is, I have answered everything he said. I will not be able to speak again. I am talking about transmission as a narrative of stories and this, excuse me, we are done talking about it. So now I asked a question from the beginning, guys, we have been here for an hour and I haven't gone to the afternoon prayer. From the beginning, have you been able to formulate what I said in the form of an introduction? Please. Okay, okay, Dr. Hassan, Dr. Hassan, just let him support Muhammad. Dr. Hassan. [Music] Muhammad, excuse me, take your time. I will take my time. Put Newton. Muhammad Salah. Okay, now I don't know what the difficulty is with my questions. You can withdraw from them, just like you withdrew from the previous two questions. It is better than saying this. When you speak and say, for the second time, that the slogan creates, young people, and he asks, is it possible for Muslims to collude in lying to themselves? By God, you are the two opposites, between disbelief and faith. If I go to my words, I tell you, they might collude, and my words are recorded. I told you twice, either intentionally or unintentionally, or emotionally, or something like that. Do the rest of the believers in other religions transmit their evidence, believe in it, and believe in it? Yes. Did they send us wrong? No. But emotionally, regarding their evidence, it is wrong. And even though it is wrong, it does not mean contradiction, because some people have done it. Likewise, you believe that you believe in the validity of their evidence, and it is wrong for you. Is it possible for them to collude intentionally? Of course, intentionally, because religion is a livelihood. Religion is beneficial, just as you claim that the church and others know the words. When there are things you say, these are not to be said to the common people. There are no problems with you regarding transmission. It is invalidated if you do not answer the question of transmission, but I will exempt you from it, just as I exempted you from two of the contradictions in them previously. We come to your words. If your words, Muhammad, do not imply obligation, thank you. So, guys, as Muhammad said, your words do not imply obligation, and I told you literally that when it comes to science, these words are nonsense. Yes, because it comes to science, so your words are nonsense, Muhammad, as I said, thank you. Yes, nonsense. But is the true report from everyone, will you find an epistemology? I will not tell you the epistemology. I will ask you: Does the report, or the true report, or the report of truth, or not? If you say it implies truth, then the matter is over. It does not imply verification. It implies evidence. If you do not say so, then go and search for an epistemology. We have an epistemology that gives us the conditions that imply verification, because not everyone who comes to us tells us something specific, even if it is a lie, we believe in it. And you go back and tell me, so let one person go and not believe. He is free to verify. If someone claims something he cannot verify, he is not obligated to him. And if he believes in it without it, it is faith. Faith is not obligatory. So, my dear, you go and we will explain it to you. So if you think that the election of transmission implies verification and implies truth, then your problem is very difficult. Your problem is 3, 4, 5, 6. He said the Messenger of God is the greatest evidence that after hundreds of years you are talking about the authentic way after 100 years. This is nonsense. Even among yourselves, Muslims, for example, you do not accept the transmission of the Shiites found in Al-Kafi and others. Muhammad, in any case, you withdrew from two questions, the question of science and the question of transmission, and you did not answer them. Ah, yes, you told me that for there to be a relationship between this prophet's claim and that it is from God, there must be a connection. I asked you logically, what is the logical obligation if I now go out, I now do something, I go to Amazon and take my mobile phone here, and people don't know what a mobile phone is. When the prophet challenged them in America, he challenged them. If he is truthful, then is it intellectually impossible, Muhammad, for someone to go out? Is it intellectually impossible for someone to go out and say, I am from God, and I challenge you with a miracle, and people are incapable of it? Can he be a liar? I challenge you to say yes, it is intellectually impossible. If you have not answered any of these questions and you withdraw, you want another chance, and I am tired. Okay, it's not supposed to be you who started. Wait, I was talking. Okay, okay, Dr. Hassan, Sheikh Yasser wants to support. Complete, complete this last part and that's it. Okay, thank you. Honestly, the last, the last thing I want to say is Dr. Worini and I don't know what, and you are fine. When I said it was nonsense, is it because it is not practiced, or do you understand the words as you please? No, it's not because it's not practiced, because the report has no benefit. But glory be to God, it's as if the words are not heard. I said because the transmitted report implies something through senses. So when you tell me now, scientifically, now, guys, I ask you by God, scientifically, now, okay, people went before, and people in a place, okay. Someone did a certain action. This is by any delusion, by any nonsense. Okay, but your heart transmitted the words from this person that he said this and that and that from the nonsense he said. Okay, now is this confirmed? That's why I say it's nonsense. It's nonsense to ask for evidence for this scientifically. Okay, the first thing is, you say it according to your mood. That's one thing. The second thing, when he said, what is the relationship? And I use your words, but by anyone. You again, again, about the intellectual impossibility. Forget it. Just say, the donkey is possible. No, no, I'm asking you an intellectual question. What do you mean by intellectual impediment, Muhammad? Okay, okay. When you tell everyone about something, and there is evidence for it, he says, but is there an intellectual impediment to it not being? You know, as long as it's possible, this is what we call ignorance, because he connects it as if it's impossible to infer the truth of something except in a specific way, only one way. Do you know what that way is? The way that puts you in a category, or if you don't believe in this, then that follows. By God, is there anyone in his life, his whole life, that goes like this? Is there anyone whose whole life goes like this? The report is what? The فرض عدم صحة الخبر ده استحاله عقليه, and this is incorrect. This is incorrect. Not in your life, nor in anything you do. Rather, on the contrary, I claim that you cannot. Or rather, I will tell you logically. If you haven't presented the premises at all, I'm telling you, I've answered your question, and the recording is available. Come now and tell me where are the premises that show my words are wrong? My words have logical premises and show that my words, if you don't do this now, I've finished my words. And the answer is: what is the relationship and what is the evidence that indicates the prophet is truthful, and all of that. I answered it from the team and answered it again. It's available. Just say I didn't answer, as you wish. Any problem, say I withdrew. The issue of friction with the majority, even though you repeated it more than once. You said this was not the basis of inference. As you wish. Say what you want. But come here. Don't you notice that from the moment you came out, I was standing in goal, and you were shooting, and I was responding? Why didn't I do what I said? There are logical premises, and I showed that. Let me tell you something. If, guys, you learn a little about the principles of logic, the principles of discussion, instead of the person, instead of this style. [Music] I stood in goal, you were shooting, and I was standing in goal. My condition was simple. Any shot you take, Muhammad, I will stand in your place, and you will shoot. But unfortunately, you didn't shoot a single goal. I asked you five questions, two you withdrew from. So if you're not that good, it's okay. Go and record it. The issue of him not saying that the majority did not commit the fallacy of the majority, and I gave him a chance to rephrase his words five times, and he couldn't without falling into this fallacy, and I withdrew from it. I asked him about the issue of transmission, and he heard the words. He said that there is no obligation, meaning it's okay, there is no obligation, right? Thank you. You admitted the issue and acknowledged that it only implies faith. So your words about it were, meaning also the issue of people and so on. I answered you that no, this thing, if the condition of verification is not met, then of course, no one has the right to obligate anyone to this statement. The issue of [Music] which I said, I responded to it, and the donkey is possible. By God, my dear, if all your words from the beginning of Clubhouse, you claimed that it is an intellectual necessity and a binding thing with intellectual evidence, and in the end, you are talking about possibility. So it's a problem. When you bring the donkey of possibility and dress it up as a noble horse, and it starts kicking you, then it's not a problem for all of you. You claimed that it is impossible for the universe to be eternal, and when we showed you scientifically that it is possible, you said, if this is not possible, my dear Muhammad, for your information, this is a small observation. The opposite of impossibility or the opposite of totality is the partial negation of possibility. So when you say that it is impossible for it to be possible, then when we give you possibility, it is a refutation of your words about impossibility or totality. So when you say that since this prophet came with a miracle and a challenge, then it is necessarily from God. No, it is not necessary. It might be from God, because you brought him into your room. Yes, if you admit in front of everyone that it is possible, in case this prophet claimed prophethood, it is possible that it is from God. May God forgive you. Okay, Muhammad. You must tell me, give me premises that my words are logically wrong. I have shown you from the beginning until now that you basically have no logical structure other than a structure based on claims you cannot prove and logical fallacies. And five questions in your logical structure. I asked you two, you withdrew from them. Three, you were cut off in the premises. What else do you want, my son? May God give us health, guys. And welcome, Muhammad. Go ahead. Thank you. 30 seconds. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask you a favor, and you ask me a favor, and according to it, but I won't promise you, according to it. Please. [Applause] Your tongue again, the last logic. [Applause] I thank you. I advised you. A piece of advice before. Guys, Ahmed Sami is here. والله, you look nice. Muhammad Salah, والله, okay. Ahmed Sami is here. Okay, okay. I'm calling Ahmed, but there's something. Wait. Ahmed. Ahmed. والله, Mr. Muhammad, I will be ashamed from today onwards to talk about logic when someone is in a room who is a donkey, and he cannot prove three things, two logical fallacies, and he withdrew from them. Of course, not out of shame, but I said, maybe your words are just empty. It's a shame that you don't know him. Okay, out of respect for logic. And if I prove my words, then I'm bad. I'm bad. No, no, guys, Muhammad, don't be nervous. Let him answer my words. Just ask people in the room what you want. Let me finish. As for me, when you present a bouquet of flowers to the donkey of possibility, the donkey of possibility will eat it, this rose and flower. Please. Now you have 20 seconds. Where do you have it? In your account with Mr. Ahmed Sami. Let people hear it, and they themselves, atheists and Muslims, judge whether you have any connection to logic, near or far, or not. If I have Bisan, I will put the link in writing, of course, of course. Okay. Okay. Is it right or wrong? The continuation of the room. I, guys, Mr. Muhammad, and the guys in the room feel that it is very far from him. He rides the donkey of possibility and reaches it quickly. Thank you. Thank you. I am not like Hassan. I will not take much, by your life. But let's talk. Just let's talk. Just let's talk about a strange issue. Okay, do you hear me? At least don't answer. Look, look, Sheikh Yasser, Sheikh Yasser, I asked him for a dialogue before, and he told me no, in private, not in public. Please, Hassan, Hassan, and you can go down as you wish. You can go down as you wish, my dear. Thank you. Thank you, Muhammad. Muhammad, please, my dear. Before Dr. Hassan speaks, and I was asking to be quiet. I'm sorry, but let's talk. Okay, just, just, just, just, just the verse that you wear. Haha. Guys, the brother, Muhammad Al-Muhtareb, escapes directly. The questions that I was going to ask Al-Muhtareb, and he escaped, he didn't bring them, and whoever heard me within a minute, not exceeding two minutes. Also, my dear, first of all, give me an effect. The effects of this war. We have, for example, the burning of the war, the Iran-Iraq war, the war, and so on. Wars in history. We have effects. When the rains come, we get ammunition, weapons, and corpses. Also, from the effects of the Iran-Iraq war. Okay, a story. Okay, give me just an effect, a sword, a helmet, a shield, a Roman or Byzantine leather, or a Persian soldier in this region, the Jordan Valley, which you claim is the lowest point on earth. After you bring the evidence, give us the historical evidence that they mentioned it. Romans, or even bring material evidence. We bring historical evidence. This is normal. This is one. Second, let's talk about the verse. The same inference. If this happened, if this happened, does it mean that this is a miracle? No, you are talking about probabilities. Real Madrid and Barcelona play against each other once. This one makes a mistake, that one makes a mistake. Okay, so if I once said Barcelona will win against Real Madrid, or won against Real Madrid, and after their loss, Real Madrid will defeat us. Okay, this can happen. Any strong person loses to another from time to time. We see this. Okay, you defeated them. After you defeated them. Okay. The Romans, a race. You defeated them. You have people without formation. If you opened or joined, we have this difference. Yes, it exists. You, my dear, when you talked about the readings, you didn't give me a chance to show you. Unfortunately, the people in this matter, you, the reading of Abdullah bin Omar. In the reading of Abdullah bin Omar, it is a victory, not their victory. So we have differences, my dear, whether the Romans won, or only he himself, Sheikh Yasser, if he were here. Okay, Nakesh, continue what you said. The dialogue was successful. Zain, successful. Also, he and I talked, and after he was cornered, he couldn't answer this donkey that the Prophet flew on. Give me one logical thing that this happened. What was he expelled from? The successful one, the successful one, did not respond. I sent him Yasser. Yasser said, yes, I agree to a dialogue, but there is a reason. Why are you afraid? And you are the one who was between me and you. The dialogue. Okay, so Al-Muhtareb needs Yasser. Oh, damn it. On the basis that he is better than you. Okay, I am ready for a dialogue between him and me. Life is difficult. Jundaga. Okay, guys, Iskandar, just let's go around. Iskandar, while Sheikh Yasser comes out. Dr. Hassan, premises and results. There is a question. Okay. Okay. [Laughter] Because your style of asking a question and running away from the questions I asked you, this works for me. I will put the questions I have. Okay. The question is, what are the premises? Please be patient with him. I will explain the topic from the beginning so you understand. What was the question? What was required of us? Of course, I have written an article about the topic. I will put it up for you to understand more about the topic. We have something called an argument and an objection. And we have an argument. It must start with claims, and the claims have reasons. Reasons, with their evidence. [Arabic] A logical specific way. It starts by setting a premise. YouTube. There are even special indications for children, meaning specific episodes on this topic. He is telling you, what are your claims, and what are the premises you presented, and how did you link it to the topic? The first claim was that, for example, if we take the claims I made, that this religion is correct because it is the most widespread, and because many people believe in it. Okay, so your first premise, that this religion is the most widespread, is a false premise. So the operation is not your religion. Yesterday, the article was published on Facebook a few days ago, explaining the topic, for example. Second, this leap from the fact that it is the most widespread religion and so on, therefore it is the correct religion, is a logical construction based on appealing to the number, which is a fallacy. I withdrew from it. The next claim is that since people have transmitted this information, it is transmitted by a true report. So the statement is correct. Again, your premises are wrong. People did not transmit it in the way of a true report. So the true report does not apply to the conditions of transmitted reports. Even if it applies, it ultimately only implies belief, because knowledge for us regarding the topic is also explained in full prompts. Whoever wants to refer to it. But it does not imply. Your link also relied on a fallacy, and by the way, I answered this question from the beginning. I told him it was wrong. Because the entire logical structure was a logical fallacy. It is not considered a logical argument. I will be ashamed, indeed, to talk about logic later in the face of this structure. The next structure, he said, since this prophet, he said, a logical structure. If someone claimed prophethood and presented a miracle and people talked about this miracle and were incapable of the challenge, then he is a prophet from God. First, first, you cannot claim that people are incapable. Second, you cannot prove that people were incapable of this matter. Is it intellectually impossible? Is there an intellectual impossibility? And what is called, if this happens, it will strike the mind. Whether it is intellectual or social. Is it intellectually impossible? Is it intellectually impossible for someone to come, challenge people, present them with something they are incapable of, and the prophet did not say? He said a donkey. He says yes, it is intellectually possible. So your words only have flaws in the logical premises and flaws in the conclusion. But it's not me who asks someone a question to waste five questions he doesn't know how to answer. And thank you. Go and do whatever you want. Go and do whatever you want. This passage. If we do not adopt the report, we adopt the report, but according to its obligation. Why are you asking him about the obligation? Because simply, my dear, you come to someone, you always compare between something called cost and cognitive burden. So if your cost is, let me give you an example. I'll wait for a room specifically for the topic. It will cost me a lot. While if I turn out to be wrong or the claim is wrong, then I'll please you with the mobile and go out. So I prefer to save time. I'll go to the mobile and go out. This is called a report. Why is it enough for me? Because there is no great obligation for me. Okay, if someone comes to me and says, "Hassan, Ahmed wants to do a weekly interview with you next week." Then I need something to logically confirm that this is logical. This is logical. Why? Because the burden is much higher. Okay, if someone comes to me and says, "Hassan, you were in the second place, and you committed a crime." And there are people who are reporting this to you. There are people who are reporting this to you. The transmission is collective. I can logically, and I can ask for evidence for this matter. Your life does not always need complete knowledge, unless its obligation is very large. For example, I am opening my own project tomorrow. I will tell him, congratulations. Explain to me logically, what is the capital, what is needed for it? If I am convinced logically, I will proceed. Okay, Hassan, we lost in the stock market, and all our money is gone, and logically, the words are correct. Am I satisfied with the world? I need tangible evidence. So in your life, you always need complete knowledge. But someone tells you, "You must commit to this, and by God, and by the angels, and by cutting off heads, and so on," and he tells you, "I will give you the weakest degree of evidence," and up to a point, where is he? Dr. Hassan, he doesn't even present it. The evidence needs something material, tangible, or a report that can be verified. It is not considered authority. Haha. He stopped in his place, but unfortunately, he is not sick, my dear.