Instigator / Con
32
1442
rating
48
debates
55.21%
won
Topic
#5852
Do dreams have divine or spiritual meanings to them?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
26
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
Opening: thank Pro for accepting this debate. My goal is to disprove the idea that dreams have divine or spiritual meaning. I will argue that dreams are simply a product of the brain, and have no special significance.
First argument: According to Medical news today.com dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's created by our minds while we sleep." The source also notes that over 95 percent of dreams are forgotten by the time a person gets out of bed. This is consistent with the fact that the average person dreams many times during the night, not just once. Unless Pro wants to argue that divine or spiritual beings treat dreams like Twitter accounts, and then delete 95% of their own messages, it doesn't make sense to claim that dreams are divine or have meaning, given how often we dream and how little we remember them.
Second Argument: Another reason why dreams are not spiritual in nature or divine is how easily they can be manipulated. For example, a person can control their dreams by using lucid dreaming techniques. This shows that dreams are not the result of divine or spiritual intervention, but are instead the result of the brain's activity. Scientists in four international labs were able to ask questions of individuals who were aware that they were asleep. While the responses were limited to eye movements or facial expressions, this demonstrates that dreams are influenced by physical phenomena, not by divine or spiritual forces. https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-entered-peoples-dreams-and-got-them-talking
Third argument: I understand that Pro intends to make an argument based on personal experiences. However, I would like to remind both my opponent and the readers that personal experience is not evidence. If we accepted personal experience as evidence, especially from a dream, then our bar for evidence is so low that we might as well believe what anyone tell us. No matter how absurd, because it was their personal experience and therefore valid.
Conclusion: Dreams are a psychological phenomenon, not a spiritual one. We dream many times during the night, and forget most of them by the time we wake up. Also, dreams can be manipulated by both the dreamer and others, which shows that they are not the result of divine or spiritual intervention.
Pro
#2
Title: The Divine Nature of Dreams: A Spiritual Perspective
Opening Statement:
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for engaging in this debate and providing an opportunity to explore the nature of dreams. It’s a fascinating topic, and I respect the position of those who seek scientific explanations. However, I stand by the belief that dreams, particularly those of profound significance, are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose.
Definition of Dream:
Linguistically:
A dream, in its simplest form, is defined as a series of thoughts, images, and sensations that occur in the mind during sleep. The word dream originates from the Old English term dreogan, which means "to carry out or endure." This suggests that dreams have been understood for centuries as more than just fleeting images—they can represent inner experiences or reflections.
Scientifically:
From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep. According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life. The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge.
My Stance:
The Islamic Perspective on Dreams
In Islam, dreams are categorized into three distinct types, each with its own nature and source:
1. Dreams from Allah (True Dreams):
These are divine dreams that carry spiritual significance, guidance, or glad tidings. Such dreams often come with a sense of clarity and tranquility. They are seen as a form of communication or reassurance from Allah. For instance, the Quran mentions the dreams of Prophets Yusuf (AS) and Ibrahim (AS), which held divine messages. These dreams often occur during the later part of the night, a time associated with greater spiritual receptivity.
2. Dreams from Shaytan (Disturbing Dreams):
These are nightmares or troubling dreams meant to create fear, anxiety, or confusion. They are attributed to the influence of Shaytan and are meant to mislead or distress the believer. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) advised us to seek refuge in Allah from such dreams and avoid narrating them to others.
3. Dreams from the Self (Everyday Dreams):
These are the byproducts of daily experiences, thoughts, and emotions. They are linked to the brain’s processing of memories, desires, and concerns. While they may seem vivid, they lack the spiritual or divine elements found in true dreams.
From the Islamic stance, not all dreams are divine, but the category of true dreams highlights that some dreams are indeed a direct manifestation of Allah’s wisdom and communication. This view bridges the gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance.
Examples from Hadith:
Here are a few authentic ahadith about dreams:
1. True Dreams as Part of Prophethood:
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:
> "A good dream that comes true is one of the forty-six parts of Prophethood."
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 87, Hadith 116)
2. Dreams from Allah vs. Shaytan:
The Prophet (PBUH) said:
> "Dreams are of three types: a dream from Allah, a dream which causes distress and is from Shaytan, and a dream which is a reflection of one’s thoughts. If any one of you sees a dream which he likes, let him tell others about it if he wishes, but if he sees something he dislikes, let him not tell anyone about it, and let him get up and pray."
(Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 5, Hadith 3906)
3. Good Dreams as Glad Tidings:
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:
> "Nothing is left of Prophethood except glad tidings." The companions asked, "What are the glad tidings?" He replied, "Good dreams."
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 87, Hadith 119)
4. Etiquette of Handling Dreams:
The Prophet (PBUH) instructed:
> "If anyone of you sees a dream that he likes, then it is from Allah. He should thank Allah for it and narrate it to others. But if he sees something else, a dream that he dislikes, then it is from Shaytan. He should seek refuge with Allah from its evil, and he should not mention it to anybody, for it will not harm him."
(Sahih Muslim, Book 29, Hadith 5621)
These ahadith emphasize the significance of dreams in Islam, their divine or satanic origins, and how to respond to them.
Examples from the Quran:
Here are examples from the Quran where dreams are mentioned and hold significant meaning:
1. Prophet Yusuf (AS) and His Dream:
Prophet Yusuf (AS) had a dream as a young boy, which foretold his future and the events that would unfold in his life. He said to his father:
> "O my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me."
(Surah Yusuf, 12:4)
This dream symbolized his eventual rise to a position of honor and his family’s recognition of him. It was a true dream from Allah.
---
2. The King of Egypt’s Dream:
The King of Egypt saw a dream that Prophet Yusuf (AS) later interpreted:
> "And [the King] said, 'Indeed, I have seen [in a dream] seven fat cows being eaten by seven [that were] lean, and seven green spikes [of grain] and others [that were] dry. O eminent ones, explain to me my vision, if you should interpret visions.'"
(Surah Yusuf, 12:43)
This dream was a divine message that foretold a famine and led to Yusuf (AS) providing crucial guidance to save the region from disaster.
---
3. Prophet Ibrahim’s (AS) Dream of Sacrifice:
Prophet Ibrahim (AS) received a command from Allah in a dream to sacrifice his son, Ismail (AS):
> "And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, 'O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think.' He said, 'O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast.'"
(Surah As-Saffat, 37:102)
This dream was a test of Ibrahim’s faith and obedience, and it held deep spiritual and symbolic meaning.
---
4. Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) Dream of Victory:
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had a dream assuring him of victory over Makkah:
> "Certainly has Allah shown to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, not fearing [anyone]."
(Surah Al-Fath, 48:27)
This dream provided reassurance to the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions during a challenging time.
---
These examples highlight the divine nature of certain dreams and their role as a means of communication, guidance, and reassurance from Allah.
My personal experience:
On the 8th of October 2005, during the holy month of Ramadan, I experienced a dream that profoundly shaped my perspective on the spiritual nature of dreams. After sahoor and just before the fajr prayer, I was listening to the recitation of the Quran. Usually, I never fall asleep during this blessed time, but on that particular morning, I dozed off for a brief moment—and in that moment, I had a vivid dream.
In the dream, I found myself amidst a disaster. The wind was howling furiously, darkness enveloped everything, and trees were falling around me. The scene was one of chaos and destruction. I saw my family and relatives in the midst of this calamity. Determined to protect them, I placed them onto a horse cart with my own hands, paying special attention to my mother, whom I carried into the cart myself. Together, I took them away from the disaster.
When I woke up, I felt deeply unsettled, especially for my mother. The dream was so vivid and unusual that I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was a warning or a sign. For a moment, I thought about staying home to ensure their safety. But then I reminded myself that everything is in Allah’s hands. No matter where I was, His decree would unfold as He willed. Trusting in Him, I went to college which is about 25km away from my home and I come back on foot crossing many land slides. So,
At exactly 8:50 a.m. that morning, a massive earthquake struck. It devastated entire regions, destroying homes, buildings, and lives. But despite the chaos around me, I felt calm and at peace. Why? Because I had already seen my family’s safety in my dream. I knew Allah had prepared my heart and mind for this moment. The dream was not just a random creation of my brain—it was divine reassurance.
I believe this dream was a mercy from Allah, a way to keep me from falling into panic or despair during such a catastrophic event. Without it, the sudden shock of worrying about my family could have had severe effects on my health—perhaps a heart attack or worse. But through this dream, Allah guided and reassured me, proving that true dreams are a reality and serve a purpose far beyond what science can explain.
Rebuttals:
Rebuttal 1: Misinterpretation of Forgetfulness and Divine Purpose
Opponent’s Argument: Most dreams are forgotten, so they cannot have divine or spiritual significance.
Response:
The fact that most dreams are forgotten does not negate the existence of divine or meaningful dreams. Islam acknowledges that not all dreams are divine; only a specific category, termed true dreams (Ru'ya Salihah), holds spiritual significance. These dreams are distinct in their clarity, impact, and purpose, as seen in the Quranic examples of Prophet Yusuf (AS) and Prophet Ibrahim (AS).
Additionally, the selective nature of remembering divine dreams aligns with Allah’s wisdom. Not every dream needs to be remembered or carry meaning. Forgetting non-divine dreams is consistent with their lack of significance and serves as a natural process of the brain filtering unimportant information.
The comparison to "Twitter messages being deleted" misrepresents divine communication. Allah’s wisdom ensures that dreams meant for guidance or reassurance are remembered with clarity by the recipient, as evident in my own personal experience and historical examples.
---
Rebuttal 2: Lucid Dreaming and Manipulation Are Not Contradictory
Opponent’s Argument: The ability to manipulate dreams through lucid dreaming techniques disproves divine or spiritual origins.
Response:
The ability to manipulate dreams through lucid dreaming is limited to self-originated dreams, which Islam identifies as a distinct category separate from divine dreams. Lucid dreaming is the result of conscious awareness during REM sleep, often involving personal desires or thoughts. This does not negate the existence of true dreams, which are involuntary, beyond human control, and carry spiritual or divine messages.
Moreover, divine dreams often occur in a state of deep sleep, beyond the conscious mind's control, as highlighted by my experience of a precognitive dream that aligned with the earthquake in 2005. Science’s ability to influence or study certain aspects of dreaming is restricted to the physical brain, but it cannot replicate or explain the unique clarity, predictive nature, or emotional resonance of true dreams.
---
Rebuttal 3: Subjective Experience Can Be Supported by Evidence
Opponent’s Argument: Personal experiences are not evidence and cannot be used to argue for the spiritual or divine nature of dreams.
Response:
While subjective experiences alone may not constitute definitive evidence in a scientific debate, they become significant when supported by patterns, historical examples, and logical reasoning. My dream of the 2005 earthquake serves as an example: it provided accurate foresight and emotional reassurance that cannot be dismissed as coincidence or purely psychological.
In Islam, true dreams are validated not only by personal impact but also by their alignment with reality, as seen in Quranic examples. These dreams often come with guidance, warnings, or reassurance that cannot be explained by chance or the subconscious alone.
Furthermore, dismissing all personal experiences risks ignoring phenomena that fall outside the scope of current scientific understanding. Science itself evolves by studying such experiences, making personal accounts an important starting point for exploring spiritual or divine aspects of human existence.
---
Rebuttal 4: Psychological Phenomena and Spiritual Realities Can Coexist
Opponent’s Argument: Dreams are psychological phenomena and have no spiritual significance.
Response:
Dreams can indeed have psychological origins, but this does not exclude the possibility of divine or spiritual significance. Islam recognizes that the majority of dreams are psychological or self-originated, but it also acknowledges the existence of true dreams that serve as a medium for divine communication.
Scientific studies on dreams focus on their physical and psychological aspects, but they do not disprove the existence of divine dreams. The predictive and guiding nature of dreams, such as those of Prophets Yusuf (AS) and Ibrahim (AS), or my own experience during the 2005 earthquake, suggests a spiritual dimension that transcends the brain’s physical processes.
The Quran and Hadith provide numerous examples of divine dreams that played crucial roles in shaping events and guiding individuals. These examples, combined with personal experiences, demonstrate that dreams can be both psychological phenomena and a means of spiritual communication.
"The Spiritual Significance of True Dreams in the Last Hours of the Night"
The hadith about the timing of truthful dreams:
"The truest of dreams are seen in the last part of the night."
(Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2272 or Musnad Ahmad 16154)
Conclusion: The Divine Reality of Dreams
In light of the evidence presented, it is clear that dreams are not merely random neurological processes or the brain's byproduct, as my opponent suggests. While science provides insight into the mechanics of dreaming, it cannot negate the spiritual and divine aspects acknowledged across cultures and religions, especially in Islam.
Dreams, as explained through Islamic teachings and substantiated by both Quranic examples and authentic Hadiths, serve as a medium for divine communication, guidance, and warnings. My personal experience, validated by the timing and subsequent events, illustrates how Allah, the Creator and Sustainer of all, uses dreams to provide reassurance, insight, and preparation for His servants.
The notion that dreams are meaningless collapses under the weight of:
1. Historical and religious examples of prophetic dreams with significant outcomes.
2. Logical reasoning that if Allah controls the universe, influencing dreams is not beyond His power.
3. Personal testimony, supported by spiritual significance and truthfulness observed in pre-dawn dreams.
To dismiss the divine nature of dreams simply because not all dreams carry spiritual weight is akin to dismissing the value of diamonds because not all stones are precious. Just as diamonds exist among stones, true dreams exist among the mundane.
Thus, dreams are more than physical phenomena—they are potential windows to the divine, gifted to humanity as part of Allah's mercy and wisdom. My opponent’s arguments, while rooted in materialism, fail to address the depth and spiritual truths that dreams encapsulate. This debate is not just about proving divine intervention in dreams but recognizing that faith and spirituality transcend the limits of material science.
Round 2
Con
#3
Opening statement:
Pro has made a very engaging argument. However, their argument is riddled with flaws and contradictions. They also relied primarily on their own subjective experiences and religious interpretations as opposed to facts, evidence, or anything academic.
Argument 1: Personal experience is not evidence.
Pro's argument relies on personal experience, but their only example is an unverifiable story about an earthquake that happened in 2005. This is insufficient evidence to support the claim that dreams are divine in nature.
It is fair for someone to be personally convinced of something based on their own experience. However, it is absurd to expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something. In the case of dreams, we cannot know for sure that they are caused by divine influence. Therefore, when Pro claims that dreams are divine in nature because of their personal experience, they are committing a fallacy.
It is also important to note that personal experience is not true just because it appears logical. In fact, you can have perfect logic and still be wrong. For example, if I told you that Marvin is a vampire, and all vampires are rich, you would logically conclude that all vampires are rich. However, vampires do not exist, so the statement can never be true. Nevertheless, the argument is valid because it cannot be disproven logically. The same is true for dreams.
Argument 2: Islam is faith not fact.
Most of Pro's argument stems from religious interpretation, particularly of the Islamic faith. However, there are many issues with making such an assertion. First, Islam is neither the only nor the oldest faith in the world. Second, if Pro wants us to believe that dreams are the result of divine intervention from Allah, they need to somehow explain all the other religions that have millions of followers who claim to have received dreams from a different entity. Finally, since Pro argues that logical reasoning alone is sufficient to say that Islam is the result of dreams, what prevents Jews, Christians, Satanists, Buddhists, and other faiths from making the same argument?
The ultimate problem with relying on faith is that anything can be claimed, argued, and said without being able to confirm it. This is because faith is defined as believing without knowing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Pro is entitled to their religious beliefs, However, it is important to note that EVERYONE on earth dreams. They did it long before Islam became a religion in 610. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/muslims/timeline.html#:~:text=The%20start%20of%20Islam%20is,at%20the%20age%20of%2040. My opponent needs to provide a compelling reason why people of all faiths should believe that dreams are divinely inspired by their particular brand of faith, and not inspired by other factors outside of the Islamic faith.
Argument 3: Pro cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Pro argues that dreams are divine in nature, but then admits that forgetting dreams is a natural process of the brain filtering out unimportant information. This is a contradiction because divinity is not natural by definition. By definition, Divinity falls in the realm of supernatural phenomenon. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divinity
Secondly pro tries several times to make their belief of divine dreaming work side by side with Modern science. However, this is a fallacy. For example, Pro says:
From the Islamic stance, not all dreams are divine, but the category of true dreams highlights that some dreams are indeed a direct manifestation of Allah’s wisdom and communication. This view bridges the gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance.
However, Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged. All you effectively say is that to a scientist, dreams are nothing more than brain activity, and from Islam's point of view, you agree, depending on the type of dream. The problem with your argument is that it doesn't bridge anything. Scientists still don't regard dreams as divine, and Islamic believers have no way to say what a dream is outside of personal interpretation and hearsay.
My opponent has provided several sources from the Qur'an to argue their case. However, the Qur'an and science are not in agreement. This is because science is based on facts and evidence, while the Qur'an is based on faith.
for instance, In the Qur'an, it is stated that Men are made out of mud. https://quran.com/en/al-hijr/26-36 This goes completely against the scientific understanding of biology, which states: "All living organism obey the laws of thermodynamics." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-008-9925-3 These laws include the fact that life starts at the cell. Not mud or dirt. Islam and modern scientist are not in agreement about life, dreams, or any subject my opponent wishes to use.
Rebuttals:
Dreams from Allah (True Dreams):These are divine dreams that carry spiritual significance, guidance, or glad tidings. Such dreams often come with a sense of clarity and tranquility. They are seen as a form of communication or reassurance from Allah. For instance, the Quran mentions the dreams of Prophets Yusuf (AS) and Ibrahim (AS), which held divine messages. These dreams often occur during the later part of the night, a time associated with greater spiritual receptivity.
This argument is nothing more than speculation based on religious bias. By your logic, literally anything that someone dreams could be argued as a divine dream, especially if you grew up in a society that instills the idea of Allah in your head. Simply pointing out that the Quran describes dreams as communication does not mean that a deity is actually talking to you. It is also logically inconsistent to argue that you can receive messages from an all-powerful creator, but only in a limited manner with limited reception. Dreams are not cellphones, Pro.
Dreams from the Self (Everyday Dreams):These are the byproducts of daily experiences, thoughts, and emotions. They are linked to the brain’s processing of memories, desires, and concerns. While they may seem vivid, they lack the spiritual or divine elements found in true dreams.
That's interesting because you know dreaming itself is an experience. When you are dreaming, your brain remains active while you yourself are unaware of the passage of time. So, arguing that dreams from the self lack the divine elements found in true dreams is a contradiction. There is literally no difference between them except for what one wants to arbitrarily interpret the dream as such, and that is pure speculation rather than proof.
Dreams from Shaytan (Disturbing Dreams):These are nightmares or troubling dreams meant to create fear, anxiety, or confusion. They are attributed to the influence of Shaytan and are meant to mislead or distress the believer. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) advised us to seek refuge in Allah from such dreams and avoid narrating them to others.
Okay, ignoring the fact you cannot prove such a being exists or that they have the ability to send nightmares to others. Nightmares are actually a completely normal and explainable phenomenon that everyone will experience in their lifetimes. There is no avoiding them and telling them to others is actually a good thing because it can allow others to calm whatever fear the dream induced. https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/nightmares-brain
On the 8th of October 2005, during the holy month of Ramadan, I experienced a dream that profoundly shaped my perspective on the spiritual nature of dreams. After sahoor and just before the fajr prayer, I was listening to the recitation of the Quran. Usually, I never fall asleep during this blessed time, but on that particular morning, I dozed off for a brief moment—and in that moment, I had a vivid dream.In the dream, I found myself amidst a disaster. The wind was howling furiously, darkness enveloped everything, and trees were falling around me. The scene was one of chaos and destruction. I saw my family and relatives in the midst of this calamity. Determined to protect them, I placed them onto a horse cart with my own hands, paying special attention to my mother, whom I carried into the cart myself. Together, I took them away from the disaster.When I woke up, I felt deeply unsettled, especially for my mother. The dream was so vivid and unusual that I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was a warning or a sign. For a moment, I thought about staying home to ensure their safety. But then I reminded myself that everything is in Allah’s hands. No matter where I was, His decree would unfold as He willed. Trusting in Him, I went to college which is about 25km away from my home and I come back on foot crossing many land slides. So,At exactly 8:50 a.m. that morning, a massive earthquake struck. It devastated entire regions, destroying homes, buildings, and lives. But despite the chaos around me, I felt calm and at peace. Why? Because I had already seen my family’s safety in my dream. I knew Allah had prepared my heart and mind for this moment. The dream was not just a random creation of my brain—it was divine reassurance.
Your dream did not actually predict the earthquake. It was a nightmare that something bad was happening. You woke up, decided not to worry, and went to school. An earthquake happened soon after. Even if you had said "I went to sleep, I foresaw the earthquake and Allah told me exactly when it will happen but assured me my family would be safe," that would not make the experience any more or less subjective. You were not assured by anyone or warned. You had a completely unrelated nightmare, saw something terrible happen, and got lucky. Then you made the personal decision to attribute it to your own rationale, which has virtually no line of difference between it and your faith.
I believe this dream was a mercy from Allah, a way to keep me from falling into panic or despair during such a catastrophic event. Without it, the sudden shock of worrying about my family could have had severe effects on my health—perhaps a heart attack or worse. But through this dream, Allah guided and reassured me, proving that true dreams are a reality and serve a purpose far beyond what science can explain.
You claim that you believe your dream was a message from Allah, but belief is not the same as assurance. There is no way to know for sure that the dream was anything other than a random creation of your brain. In addition, it is pure speculation on your part to assume that you would have had a heart attack or worse if you had worried about your family. Finally, finding belief that your family was fine through a dream that you interpreted as a divine message is not proof of anything. All you have offered so far are words and hearsay.
I have provided many scientific and medical sources that completely debunk the notion of divine properties in dreams and provide more rationalized explanations. You, in turn, have offered nothing more than theology, a personal and unconfirmable story, and biased claims with nothing more than circular information as evidence.
Conclusion:
Pro's argument that dreams are divine in nature is unconvincing. Their primary source is theology, which is based on faith rather than evidence. They have not provided any counter-evidence to the scientific explanations for dreams, and even agree with them to some extent. In addition, Pro has contradicted themselves several times.
For example, they argue that personal experience is supported by evidence but then admit that it does not hold up against scientific arguments, which is the basis of my framework. Finally, Pro is guilty of confirmation bias, emphasizing the importance of remembering true dreams while overlooking the possibility of selective remembering of dreams that fit pre-existing beliefs.
Pro's argument that dreams are divine in nature is unconvincing. Their argument relies heavily on subjective feelings and interpretation, which makes it biased. Pro needs to address the scientific community and show us how science is wrong, or prove how the specific Islamic understanding of dreams surpasses both science and every other faith. So far, they have failed to do so.
Pro
#4
Rebuttal 1:
My opponent has crafted an engaging argument, but their reasoning attempts to confine me to an artificially narrow framework. We are discussing the spiritual meaning of dreams, yet they expect me to analyze them as though I’m observing dreams under a microscope. This approach restricts the conversation to their biased perspective while ignoring the essence of the topic.
Naturally, the spiritual interpretation of dreams involves discussing their religious and metaphysical dimensions. My opponent neither excluded religion from the debate nor established any framework to dismiss its relevance. Why, then, is he attempting to limit the scope of my argument?
Moreover, science has never studied the spiritual or divine aspects of dreams and is fundamentally unequipped to do so. Dreams are known to science only because people report them—science cannot directly measure or observe their spiritual significance or even contant.
---
Rebuttal 2:
When did religion become irrelevant to academia? Historically, the earliest universities and academic institutions were founded on religious principles. Even today, religious studies remain a vital academic discipline, with Ph.D. programs and rigorous research dedicated to the field. Theology, or the study of religion, is undoubtedly an intellectual pursuit. My opponent’s claim that religion is outside the realm of academia is incorrect and demonstrates a lack of awareness.
---
Rebuttal 3:
The evidence I presented in my previous argument is factual and valid, even if it does not fall under the category of “scientific evidence.” It is unreasonable to assume that all truths must be scientific to be credible. My opponent’s dismissal of non-scientific evidence as invalid reflects a flawed understanding of what constitutes evidence.
---
Rebuttal 4:
This debate is between my opponent and me—not a third party like Richard Dawkins or some other authority. Naturally, I will draw from my personal experiences, and if they are logical and reasonable, they should be considered valid.
If my opponent outright dismisses my personal experiences, they are effectively calling me a liar. Such a stance does not contribute to a constructive or rational debate.
My opponent:
Pro's argument ....... divine in nature.
Rebuttal 1:
My opponent claims my argument is insufficient because the example I provided is "unverifiable." However, I must ask: has anyone ever invented a device capable of verifying dreams? Dreams, by their very nature, are personal, subjective experiences. If they cannot be objectively verified, then how does my opponent expect me—or anyone else—to provide verifiable evidence?
By dismissing my example as unverifiable, my opponent implicitly accuses me of dishonesty. However, I have no reason to fabricate my account, and their skepticism appears less about logical scrutiny and more about avoiding engagement with the argument itself. This reveals intellectual dishonesty on their part rather than any flaw in my reasoning.
If my opponent believes dreams are inherently unverifiable, then I must question the very premise of this debate. Why raise the issue if they are unwilling to accept personal testimony as valid within the context of a subjective phenomenon like dreaming?
My opponent:
"It is fair for someone ...... committing a fallacy"
My response:
Rebuttal 1:
By saying, "it is absurd to expect others to believe you," my opponent is essentially accusing me of lying. This is unfair and dishonest. As I’ve already pointed out, there is no physical method or scientific device that can detect or measure the content of dreams. So how can anyone verify whether a dream is simple or divine guidance? Obviously, we have to rely on personal testimonies, including mine.
But it seems my opponent is more comfortable trusting testimonies from people like Richard Dawkins and other atheists. When it comes to believers like me, he automatically assumes we’re lying. This shows clear bias and intellectual dishonesty.
Rebuttal 2:
My opponent concedes the point by stating, "In the case of dreams, we cannot know for sure that they are caused by divine influence." This statement is essentially a withdrawal of their ability to refute my claim. If my opponent acknowledges that we cannot definitively determine whether dreams are divine in nature, then they cannot reasonably claim to disprove their divine origin either.
In this context, my opponent’s stance becomes a matter of belief rather than evidence. Dismissing the spiritual or divine nature of dreams without evidence is just as speculative as affirming it. Hence, their argument lacks a firm foundation, while mine remains consistent and logical.
My opponent:
"It is also important to note ..... The same is true for dreams"
My stance:
Rebuttal 1:
Since when has logic been “wrong”? How absurd is it to claim that logic can be perfect yet still wrong. This statement contradicts the very essence of what logic is supposed to be. Not to sound dismissive, but it’s almost humorous. If something is perfectly logical, then it must follow from its premises. To call perfect logic wrong is itself illogical.
Rebuttal 2:
My opponent seems to have let emotions and personal biases take over, forgetting the actual resolution of this debate. By admitting that my argument is based on perfect logic, he has essentially conceded its validity. What prevents him from accepting my stance is not the logic itself, but the origin of my stance—rooted in theism and theology.
Let me remind my opponent that this debate is not about the existence or nonexistence of God but about whether dreams have a spiritual nature. Instead of addressing the topic directly, he has shifted the focus to questioning the source of spirituality, which is irrelevant to this debate.
The resolution assumes the existence of a deity or spiritual force that influences dreams for the sake of argument. My opponent’s dismissal of my examples and testimony is rooted in his personal disbelief in God, not in the evidence or logic I presented. Furthermore, dreams, by nature, are subjective experiences. To discard subjective evidence simply because it is subjective is illogical—especially when dreams are inherently personal and unverifiable through any other means. My opponent’s reasoning here is flawed and detracts from the core of the debate.
Argument no 2 from my opponent:
Rebuttal 1
I am an ambassador of the Islamic faith, so I will take the perspective of Islam here. Let me explain the Islamic stance on this matter.
Islam is not a new religion; we consider it the very first religion, beginning with Adam (PBUH). Christianity and Judaism are both Abrahamic religions, and we believe in their original forms. In Christianity, the Father is considered the higher entity, and we believe that He is God, whose name in the Quran is Allah. Regarding Buddhism and Hinduism, while they may not emphasize the same understanding of God, their texts do contain the concept of a supreme deity. Though some ideas were later altered, if we analyze their origins, we can trace them back to the same source.
In the Islamic tradition, dreams are not exclusive to a particular individual but are a phenomenon accessible to everyone. According to the Islamic perspective, Allah, the Creator, loves all of His creation and guides whomever He wills. This is evident in the Quran, where Allah says:
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:272): "It is not for you to guide them, but Allah guides whom He wills. And whatever good you believe in, is for your own good."
Surah Al-Qasas (28:56): "Indeed, [O Muhammad], you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided."
Allah’s love and mercy extend to all people, as He Himself says:
Surah An-Nahl (16:18): "And if you should count the favors of Allah, you could not enumerate them. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
Surah Al-A'raf (7:156): "[Allah said], 'My mercy encompasses all things. So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses.'"
In Islam, dreams are seen as one of the ways Allah may communicate with His creation, and this divine guidance is available to all.
More examples:
5. Surah Ash-Shura (42:52):
"And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or what is faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants."
6. Surah Al-A'raf (7:178):
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who is rightly guided, and whomsoever He leads astray—those are the losers."
Conclusion:
So Allah can guide, warn and assure anyone whomever he wants through dream. It's not related to religious guiding but to other worldly matters as well. And Allah loves everyone he created irrespective of religion.
Also dream can come from Shaitan(devil) which guide bad people which are kind of guidance from wrong side which already discussed in my last argument.
Rebuttal 2 of argument 2:
First, the definition of faith my opponent has provided is not actually present in the link he cited. This undermines the credibility of his argument as it relies on a misrepresentation of his own source.
Second, faith itself is not the resolution of this debate, and I have already addressed its relevance in detail.
Third, my opponent's assertion that faith is "believing without knowing" is simply incorrect and reflects a misunderstanding of what faith entails. Not everyone in faith is without knowledge. In fact, atheistic worldviews themselves rely on many unknowns and unseen phenomena. For example, concepts such as the Big Bang, evolution, and other foundational ideas in atheism are based on theories, subjective interpretations, and secondary evidence—not direct observation or replication.
If my opponent dismisses faith or religion on the basis of being "unknown" or "unseen," then why the bias in ignoring the similar unknowns in atheistic beliefs? There is significant evidence—philosophical, experiential, and even historical—that supports the existence of God and aligns with religious interpretations.
In conclusion, my opponent's argument not only veers off-topic but also applies a double standard when addressing faith versus atheistic assumptions.
Rebuttal 3 for arguemnt 2 3rd part:
Rebuttal:
I’ve already explained that dreams come from three sources: the mind, the devil, and divine inspiration. My opponent’s repeated question about the origin of other dreams shows they are not seriously engaging with my previous arguments.
Conclusion:
Yes, everyone dreams, and I have already explained the sources: most are from the mind, reflecting daily activities and thoughts; others are from the devil, such as disturbing dreams (e.g., succubus or demons); and rare ones are divinely inspired.
Divine dreams are rare and may never occur in a disbeliever’s lifetime, though the possibility exists.
Response to arguemnt 3:
Rebuttal 1
My opponent claims a contradiction in acknowledging natural processes like forgetting dreams while asserting the possibility of divine dreams. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs. In Islam, natural and supernatural phenomena are under the control of Allah. Nature and natural laws are not separate from Him; they are manifestations of His will and wisdom. Divinity operates within or beyond these processes as Allah wills, and you cannot categorize Him in human terms.
Furthermore, the definition my opponent links to fails to substantiate their claim. Nowhere does it exclude divinity from existing within natural processes. This argument is a strawman and beyond the scope of this debate. My opponent continues to confuse the discussion with irrelevant philosophical questions.
---
Rebuttal 2
My opponent misrepresents my statement about bridging psychological and spiritual views on dreams. I did not claim that scientists recognize divine dreams, only that Islamic theology provides an explanation for their spiritual significance. Scientists do not know even 1% of the universe, and their inability to measure or explain divine dreams does not disprove their existence.
Dreams serve a purpose—whether as reflections of mental states or spiritual guidance. Without purpose, they would merely waste energy or cause harm (e.g., nightmares). Rejecting divine dreams while ignoring this purposelessness contradicts rationality.
Lastly, when my opponent accepted the logic of divine dreams in earlier rounds, it undermines their refusal to consider their spiritual dimension. Rejecting them now simply due to their source being Islam or theism exposes bias rather than intellectual consistency.
---
Rebuttal 3
My opponent’s reliance on atheistic beliefs creates further contradictions. Atheism often dismisses humanity as purposeless and accidental, yet my opponent applies purpose and reason to argue against divine dreams. This inconsistency is striking.
This dream has exposed the history of mankind in given below YouTube link.
This link above, the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Prophet Daniel, is a clear historical example of a divinely inspired dream. The detailed prophecy revealed the succession of great kingdoms—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and a fifth eternal kingdom. This fifth kingdom, from an Islamic perspective, is seen as Islam, established by Allah Himself.
This dream was revealed to a non-believing king, later interpreted by a prophet, and its prophecy came true with remarkable accuracy. It serves as strong evidence of the divine and spiritual nature of some dreams. Such an extraordinary revelation cannot be dismissed as mere brain activity or imagination.
It is clear from this example that dismissing all dreams as mere natural occurrences or psychological processes ignores historical evidence of divinely inspired dreams.
Gist of My Opponent’s Arguments (So Far):
1. Opening Stance: My opponent's goal is to disprove that dreams have divine or spiritual significance and instead argue that they are merely brain activity. However, this resolution has been misrepresented in his arguments.
2. Faith vs. Rationality: My opponent dismisses my arguments simply because they are based on religious beliefs, ignoring that religious perspectives can also be logical and rational. This dismissal is biased and contrary to the resolution. My opponent already considered me perfectly logical and debated against it's origin which is outside the scope of this debate.
3. Misframing the Debate:
My opponent conflates the existence of spirituality with the resolution of this debate. This debate is about whether dreams are divine or spiritual, not whether spirituality itself exists.
4. Irrelevant Speculations: My opponent repeatedly introduces unrelated topics (e.g., faith versus fact, evolution, and the Qur'an’s alignment with science), which are not part of the resolution. This derails the debate from its intended focus on dreams.
Conclusion of Rebuttal:
Proof of dreams being spiritual or divine.
Argument:
My argument is that Allah is not confined to being solely spiritual, natural or supernatural; He also exists in a way that impacts the physical realm and controls all that He has created. He is closer to a person than their jugular vein, signifying His intimate presence in our lives.
Allah says in Quran.
Al-Mujadila (58:7):
"Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth? Never is there any whispering among three, but He is their fourth; nor among five but He is their sixth; nor fewer nor more, but He is with them wherever they may be. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will inform them of what they did. Surely Allah knows everything."
This verse demonstrates Allah's omnipresence (islamic prospect) and involvement in human affairs. It highlights that whether in solitude or in groups, Allah is always present, fully aware, and actively engaged, transcending spiritual and physical dimensions with his Noor or ilm.
Allah said in Quran.
An-Nur (24:35):
"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a brilliant star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things."
This verse explains that Allah’s light influences everything, sustaining and powering the entire universe. His light is present in everything and makes everything function, both physically and spiritually. Our soul is directly connected to Allah and is the source of spirituality. It controls our physical body and distinguishes us from other creatures, giving humans intelligence unlike any other species. This is why, no matter how many millions of years pass, monkeys will remain monkeys and never become human, as they lack the soul that Allah has placed in us. That is why you do not see any monkey becoming human.
Dreams are closely tied to this connection and can be categorized into three types:
1. Dreams influenced by physical needs and bodily states: These arise from daily activities and the physical condition of the body.
Yet,
Surah Al-An'am (6:59):
"And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record."
This verse highlights Allah's absolute knowledge and control over every aspect of creation, emphasizing that nothing happens without His will.
So even physical dreams are his will.
2. Dreams influenced by demons:
Existence of demon:
Surah Ar-Rahman (55:15):
"And He created the jinn from a smokeless flame of fire."
When we consider Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula, E = mc², it establishes a relationship between matter and energy. The formula indicates that matter can be converted into energy under certain conditions, such as at very high speeds or intense reactions.
In light of this understanding, one could argue that "smokeless fire" refers to a form of energy or a state of matter-energy transformation, which aligns with the idea that demons (jinn) are created from a non-physical yet material form of energy. This concept shows how beings like jinn can exist within the natural laws created by Allah while maintaining unique properties like shape-shifting or invisibility. Because it's equation both shift possible. Matter to energy and energy to matter.
I do not constrain scientists from exploring this part of nature. On the contrary, I encourage the pursuit of understanding. However, there are millions of testimonies from different eras, cultures, and regions of the world regarding demons (or jinn), which cannot merely be dismissed as coincidence or mass delusion. These accounts point to phenomena beyond our current scientific comprehension.
When matter, composed of atoms and electrons, can exhibit consciousness in the form of human or animal life, why can’t energy derived from matter have similar properties? For instance, forms of energy such as light, infrared, ultraviolet, or other electromagnetic waves are composed of photons, which are massless particles. Science acknowledges their existence but cannot fully explain their nature or how they interact to produce the effects we observe.
This limitation highlights that science, despite its achievements, is still in its infancy. For example, photons are integral to our understanding of light and energy, yet their dual wave-particle behavior, lack of mass, and interaction with matter challenge scientific explanation.
In this context, dismissing the existence of beings like demons, which are said to be created from "smokeless fire" (a state of energy), is premature. If science cannot fully understand the nature of energy or photons, how can it categorically reject the existence of entities made from such elements? The lack of knowledge or current scientific understanding is not a basis for outright denial.
3. Divine dreams from Allah:
In Surah An-Nur 24:35, Allah beautifully describes Himself as the "light of the heavens and the earth," emphasizing His ultimate, all-encompassing nature. Allah is not merely a source of spiritual light, but His light sustains and governs everything in existence, both physical and metaphysical. The verse further describes Allah's light as a "lamp in a niche," which perfectly symbolizes His wisdom, power, and guidance, which spread universally and without limitation, as a lamp illuminates in all directions. This lamp's source is likened to a star, emphasizing the uniqueness and singularity of Allah’s light.
The verse further highlights the metaphor of a tree whose oil is used to light the lamp. This tree’s oil does not require ignition, signifying that Allah’s sustenance, power, and presence are infinite and self-sustaining. It does not rely on any external creator, sustainer, or provider, reinforcing Allah’s ultimate sovereignty and independence. This divine light is "light upon light," indicating the layered and unending nature of Allah’s wisdom and control over the universe, which is the foundation of all existence.
Now, why is this relevant in our discussion about dreams and their divine or spiritual nature? I bring this up to show that science, in its current state, is still a work in progress, unable to fully grasp or explain the essence of divinity, spiritual forces, or the metaphysical. Just as Allah’s light is beyond the physical constraints of space and time, so too are divine forces and energies.
Science may try to explain the physical aspects of life, but there are limits to human knowledge. The very concept of "light" in the Qur'an, which is beyond material boundaries, points to a reality that transcends the scope of current scientific understanding. The laws of physics, including the forces we know, still cannot explain everything in the universe. This is where divine knowledge and spiritual forces enter. Thus, rejecting the existence of spiritual phenomena, such as divine dreams, simply because science cannot measure them, is both premature and flawed.
In conclusion, by explaining the nature of Allah’s light, I argue that the divine forces governing dreams, including their spiritual significance, cannot be fully dismissed by a scientific worldview that remains limited in its scope. Just as Allah’s light sustains and governs the entire cosmos, His influence extends into the spiritual realms—realms that may not be immediately perceivable through physical means but are just as real and significant.
Light, as we understand it, is a form of energy, and it exists across a spectrum with various types, such as visible light, ultraviolet (UV), infrared, X-rays, and gamma rays. These types of light differ in their wavelengths, and each type has distinct characteristics. However, it's important to note that even though we can observe some parts of the spectrum, such as visible light, we cannot directly see others like ultraviolet, infrared, or X-rays, as they are outside the range of human vision.
Moreover, we cannot fully understand the massless photons that carry light, nor can we grasp the intricacies of the energy forms they represent. The scientific community has yet to completely decode the nature of these light waves and their effects on matter, let alone the deeper dimensions of light, such as the higher-frequency radiation beyond visible light, including cosmic rays, millimeter waves, and terahertz radiation.
In the Quran, Allah describes Himself as the "Light of the heavens and the earth" (Surah Noor 35). This light is not simply a physical phenomenon like sunlight or artificial light; it represents a form of energy that sustains everything in the universe. Allah's light is like a lamp placed in a niche, which shines without the need for ignition or any external force. This is a profound statement, as it illustrates how Allah's presence and energy are not confined to the physical laws we know but transcend them.
The light of Allah, like the rays of the sun, has infinite power and is not limited by the constraints of our perception or understanding. Just as we cannot see the full spectrum of light, such as UV or X-rays, due to the limitations of our senses, we are similarly unable to fully comprehend the divine light that Allah speaks of. The light that Allah speaks of in Surah Noor is beyond our perception, much like how certain wavelengths of light are beyond our visual capacity. We may be able to observe the effects of Allah’s light, just as we observe the effects of sunlight without fully understanding its nature, but the true essence of Allah’s light is beyond human comprehension.
Furthermore, light, especially the massless photons of visible light, offers us a glimpse into the nature of energy that we struggle to understand scientifically. Yet, these photons exist even though science still has much to discover about their behavior and physical properties. If we struggle to understand the full scope of energy and light within our universe, how then can we claim to fully comprehend the light of Allah, which is the source of all creation? His light transcends everything we know about physics and energy. Also for this light from sun we need ozone layer to protect us what about if Allah shows himself who is provider of all lights.
Therefore, just as science has not yet fully unraveled the complexities of light, energy, and their interaction with matter, we must acknowledge that Allah’s light is beyond human understanding, and attempts to fully comprehend it or dismiss its divine significance based on our limited knowledge would be misguided. Allah's light, like His presence, is beyond the constraints of our perception and knowledge, just as there are forms of light that we cannot see or fully understand.
Conclusion:
I did not intend to dive deep into theology because it is an immense topic, and discussing it thoroughly within the scope of this debate is not feasible. My opponent should have focused more on debating the existence of the divine rather than discussing whether dreams are spiritual or not.
Conclusion:
Science, being in its infancy, is not in a position to explore or make definitive claims about the existence of Allah. The relationship between science and the divine is still too premature to establish with certainty. Many of the ideas surrounding this debate arise from misunderstandings or misinterpretations shaped by various religious perspectives, but Islam transcends such notions.
As we’ve seen, Allah's essence and the understanding of His light are beyond the grasp of our current scientific knowledge. Just as science does not yet fully comprehend the nature of light, energy, or the universe's forces, it is equally incapable of fully understanding or proving the existence of the divine.
I encourage you to watch the video linked below, which is my own explanation of these concepts.
Round 3
Con
#5
due to the long nature of this debate. I made my response in the form of this video.
Pro
#6
My opponent's statement demonstrates some distinct rhetorical tactics and strategies. Let's breakdown,
Key point 1:
Because of less space I have provided them in link below.
Key point2:
Science is capable of studying the brain's activity and physiological changes during dreaming, such as neural patterns and REM sleep. However, it cannot access or analyze the actual content of dreams. The interpretation of dreams, including whether they hold spiritual significance, is inherently subjective and personal, shaped by an individual’s beliefs, culture, and experiences. Since science relies on empirical evidence, it cannot objectively classify dreams as spiritual or non-spiritual, as such classifications extend beyond its measurable scope.
Key point 3
My opponent instigated the debate, naturally a person who instigated a debate claims something, so the burden of proof lies on him not me. While he is shifting it on me. Even though, I have proven that dreams have guided people throughout history, which I have given a lot of examples about. Dreams have forseen historical evidence with much precision which also proves they are divinely inspired and no machine can prove it wrong. Dreams help people and warn on a daily basis in the world. The proverb "dream come true" is often seen in practical life.
My opponent's demand:
"The only requirement of the pro was to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meanings behind them"
Response:
Dream:
A series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep. (Oxford languages)
Explanation:
Extent of physical involvement:
As we can see dreams occur in the mind or brain, so as far as human beings are concerned, the physical nature of the dream is that, it occurs exactly in the brain. Nothing more, but thoughts images and sensations are not physical, and my opponent failed to prove that thoughts, images and sensations which occur in the brain during sleep are of physical nature. I think this is something science could not prove or comprehend on a physical scale just like consciousness.
So,
What I would call them content of dream or dream itself.
Contention:
As a dream is not physical or material in nature but it occurs in a brain which is material does not mean they are materialistic in nature or we can measure them physically or evaluate or observe them physically.
My opponent's assertions so far,
My opponent claims that, what we see happens within the brain when a person is dreaming on MRI, CT scan or PET scan or any kind of imaginary scanning of brain activity shows that dreams are physical.
My contention:
What you will find in the brain or changes that occur in the brain during any activity are neurological pathways which never determine what is happening in the brain. There are devices which if inserted in the brain let you control some machines and you can manifest commands through your brain signals but still analysing the content of the brain is far far away right now.
Further,
Even if they know all the content of the brain, or they can scan complete brain imaginary, thoughts and sensations somehow still this is not relevant to what my opponent claims.
How?
Because this process can verify the content of the dream which my opponent is discarding of my own example because he considers them unverifiable. But whether the content of a dream is normal one or spiritual or divine guidance or inspiration is still subjective and needs interpretation, mostly of the 3rd party or the person himself.
So,
The real debate is about the interpretation of the dream not the dream itself.
So,
How can we verify that dreams or content of dreams are normal or spiritual, about them being merely physical is out of question.
Why,
Because we already see that what is physical in a dream is that, they occur in the brain. Which is common for all kinds of dreams no matter what.
So,
It's irrelevant to measure their physical nature or even discuss it. Because the problem at hand is their interpretation which I kept telling my opponent in the last 2 rounds.
Contention:
Here I have explained everything in great detail about the mechanism of dream and what our resolution is.
So I am going to discuss the interpretation of the dream onward. Now I would say the resolution itself is subjective or personal interpretation for everybody as far as dreams are concerned. If a person interprets his dream to be normal or spiritual (divinely inspired or demon's influence) anybody else can object to it. But his personal perception would remain subjective and valid for himself.
Contention:
Now I have established that the interpretation of dreams is subjective so the resolution of debate as well. So my personal examples or examples from other people are relevant and valid for this debate. Now I am going to discuss proving their spiritual interpretation.
Contention:
Keys which determine dreams being divinely inspired:
1. Time of dreaming (Islamically just before dawn or at the time of tahajut) not very much relevant to my opponent but for viewers.
2. Relations of dreams with the real world, for example a futuristic historical event or prophecy or we can say prediction of the future.
3. Revealing the past event to a specific person which is not related to that person is known to that person but is true.
4. Vision of anything which really exists but not known to the dreamer and verified. Like seeing a place or event which is occurring or occurred in reality and a person gets to know it through a dream and verified.
:Point of importance here:
Everything I said in this contention shows that, it's all subjective and relates to personal testimonials.
5 Guidance, warning and assurance through dreams which was helpful for dreamers and later verified. Even ignored by the dreamer but still happened in reality.
Contention:
All what I said above could prove their dream was divinely inspired or had a spiritual element.
My proofs in the light of the above examples:
1. I have given my personal example.
2. I have provided an example of a disbeliever whose dream revealed the history of five great nations or empires.
3. I have given the dreams of prophets.
4. There are millions of testimonies from people around the world, across all eras, of dreams that have come true.
5 All these examples are substantial and carry significant weight in supporting my claim.
Contention:
Everybody can see that science has no role in determining the spirituality of dreams, nor is any machine required for it. Regardless of the type of dream a person experiences, its significance depends entirely on the interpretation of the dream, not on how it forms in someone's mind.
Contention:
Below are real, documented examples of people whose dreams came true, recorded in historical accounts, media, or personal testimonies:
1. Abraham Lincoln's Prophetic Dream
Details: Abraham Lincoln reportedly had a dream about his own death just days before his assassination.
The Dream: He dreamed of walking into a room where a corpse was laid in state, surrounded by mourners. Upon asking who had died, he was told, “The President.”
Outcome: Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, shortly after sharing the dream with his wife and close friends.
Source: Ward Hill Lamon, Lincoln’s close friend and bodyguard, documented this account.
2. Mark Twain’s Vision of His Brother’s Death
Details: The famous author Mark Twain had a vivid dream about his brother Henry’s tragic death.
The Dream: Twain dreamed of seeing his brother lying in a metal coffin with a bouquet of white flowers and a single red rose on his chest.
Outcome: Shortly after the dream, Henry died in a steamboat explosion, and Twain was shocked to see the funeral setup match his dream exactly.
Source: Twain detailed this in his autobiography.
3. Carl Jung’s Premonitions in Dreams
Details: Renowned psychologist Carl Jung experienced several prophetic dreams throughout his life.
The Dream: Before World War I, Jung had recurring dreams of a great flood engulfing Europe, which he interpreted as a sign of widespread destruction and chaos.
Outcome: Soon after, World War I began, confirming his interpretation of the dreams as premonitions of war.
Source: Jung discussed these experiences in his book Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
4. The Sinking of the Titanic
Details: Several passengers and individuals unrelated to the voyage reportedly dreamed of the Titanic sinking before the disaster.
Example:
Jessie Serre: A woman in England canceled her Titanic ticket after dreaming about drowning in icy waters.
Outcome: The Titanic tragically sank on April 15, 1912, validating their fears.
Source: Documented in Titanic: Psychic Forewarnings of a Tragedy by George Behe.
5. British Soldier During World War I
Details: A British soldier named Corporal Edward F. Black shared a dream about narrowly escaping death.
The Dream: He dreamed that his platoon would be shelled in a particular location.
Outcome: He convinced his comrades to move out of the area, and soon after, it was shelled, saving their lives.
Source: This story was documented in historical war accounts.
6. David Booth and the American Airlines Crash
Details: In 1979, David Booth, a Cincinnati office manager, had recurring dreams of a plane crash.
The Dream: He vividly saw a plane veering off the runway and bursting into flames.
Outcome: Days later, an American Airlines DC-10 crashed shortly after takeoff in Chicago, killing 273 people. Booth had reported his dreams to the FAA, but no action could be taken.
Source: Covered in news reports and psychic phenomena studies.
7. Harriet Tubman’s Visions
Details: Harriet Tubman, the famous abolitionist, claimed to have prophetic dreams and visions guiding her on the Underground Railroad.
The Dream: Tubman had recurring dreams and spiritual visions showing her safe routes and warnings about dangers.
Outcome: She successfully led hundreds of slaves to freedom, crediting her dreams as divine guidance.
Source: Documented in biographies like Harriet Tubman: The Moses of Her People.
8. The Aberfan Disaster Dream (1966)
Details: Several people dreamed of a school being buried under a landslide in Aberfan, Wales.
The Dream:
A child reported dreaming of their school being buried by black sludge.
Another woman dreamed of a group of children crying out for help.
Outcome: On October 21, 1966, a coal spoil tip collapsed, engulfing a school and killing 144 people, mostly children.
Source: Documented in Premonitions Bureau by Sam Knight.
These examples illustrate how dreams have been recorded as foretelling real-world events, sometimes with astonishing accuracy.
The list goes on; these are well-documented cases, while unverified and casual instances from ordinary people often go unnoticed.
1. J. Allan Hobson (Neuroscientist)
In his work on the physiology of dreams, Hobson has proposed that dreams are a form of cognitive processing tied to the brain's REM activity. However, in his book, He states:
“The brain produces dreams, but the meaning of the dreams is a question that lies outside the realm of pure neuroscience.” (The Dreaming Brain, 1988)
While Hobson leans toward a physiological explanation of dreams, he recognizes that dreams can carry emotional, psychological, and even symbolic significance, which opens up room for spiritual interpretations.
2. Stanislav Grof (Psychologist and Transpersonal Psychologist)
Grof is a major figure in transpersonal psychology and has conducted extensive research into altered states of consciousness, including through LSD and other psychedelic substances.
“Dreams can serve as a means of accessing profound states of consciousness, and their symbolic meanings can have spiritual relevance.” (The Holotropic Mind, 1992)
Grof suggests that dreams can be part of a larger spiritual process, connecting the unconscious mind with higher spiritual states.
3. Evan Thompson (Philosopher of Mind)
“Consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. There remains a mystery about how subjective experience arises from the brain.” (Waking, Dreaming, Being, 2015)
4. Rick Strassman (Psychiatrist, Researcher on DMT)
“In the DMT state, individuals report vivid, spiritual experiences that cannot be easily explained through materialistic views of the mind. These experiences share many qualities with certain types of dreams.” (DMT: The Spirit Molecule, 2000)
5. Additional Experts
Alan Wallace (Buddhist Scholar and Consciousness Researcher)
“Consciousness is a vast and unexplored terrain, and spiritual practices provide insight that cannot be derived from the materialist framework alone.” (The Taboo of Subjectivity, 2000)
Roger Penrose (Physicist):
“We may one day understand consciousness through quantum physics, but it is likely that the process will reveal a deeper reality that is far beyond current scientific comprehension.” (The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989)
David Chalmers (Philosopher of Mind):
“The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved, and there is no clear explanation for why or how we have subjective experiences. This opens the door to alternative interpretations, including spiritual ones.” (Consciousness and Its Place in Nature, 2002)
My opponent’s reliance on brain scans and EEGs to argue that dreams are purely physiological fails to account for the subjective and spiritual dimensions of of dreaming, which many prominent thinkers acknowledge as significant and unexplained by modern science.
Materialistic approaches of scientists:
While materialist scientists, such as J. Allan Hobson and Francis Crick, have provided fascinating insights into the physiological mechanics of dreams, they often focus on the "how" rather than the "why." For example:
1. Mechanics vs. Purpose: Studies like the Activation-Synthesis Theory explain how neural signals during REM sleep create dreams, but they do not explain why specific dreams contain meaningful or predictive content that often aligns with real-life events.
2. Limitations of Science: As acknowledged by scientists like Christof Koch, we have not yet fully understood consciousness. If science cannot explain the full extent of waking consciousness, how can it conclusively dismiss spiritual dimensions of the unconscious mind?
3. Room for Interpretation: Even neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio admit the complexity of mental processes. This leaves room for phenomena beyond the scope of current methodologies, such as spiritual interpretations of dreams.
4. Unexplained Predictive Dreams: The testimonies and experiences of individuals with dreams that accurately predict future events remain an area that science has not fully explored or explained. This gap suggests there may be more to dreams than mere brain activity.
Hard problem of consciousness:
The problem of consciousness is often divided into two main challenges:
1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to one of the most profound challenges in understanding the human mind, as introduced by philosopher David Chalmers.
Core Aspects of the Hard Problem:
1. Subjective Experience:
Science can explain the brain's mechanisms (neuronal activity, sensory processing), but it cannot explain why these mechanisms result in the subjective experience of "what it feels like" to see, hear, or think.
2. Qualia:
This refers to the individual, subjective sensations we experience, like the redness of red or the pain of a headache. These are inherently personal and cannot be directly observed or measured.
3. Mind-Brain Gap:
There's a significant gap between the objective study of the brain's physical processes and the subjective nature of consciousness.
Examples in Action:
Why does seeing a sunset produce a feeling of awe, rather than just a mechanical processing of light waves?
Why do dreams sometimes feel vivid and meaningful, even though they are products of unconscious brain activity?
Why It’s “Hard”:
Unlike the "easy problems" of consciousness (e.g., understanding brain functions like perception, memory, or attention), the hard problem cannot be studied purely through objective measures like brain scans or neural activity. It ventures into questions about the fundamental nature of reality, bridging science, philosophy, and spirituality.
This challenge leaves room for multiple interpretations, including metaphysical and spiritual perspectives, as science does not yet have a definitive answer.
The Question: How and why does physical brain activity (neurons firing, chemical reactions) produce subjective experiences, such as thoughts, emotions, and sensations?
The Mystery: While science can explain the mechanisms of the brain (e.g., neurons processing sensory input), it cannot yet explain qualia—the subjective, first-person experience of being conscious (e.g., what it feels like to see red or taste sweetness).
2. The Easy Problems of Consciousness
These refer to understanding the mechanisms underlying brain functions like:
Perception, memory, attention, and decision-making.
For example, how sensory data is processed or how we focus on specific tasks.
While called "easy," these problems are complex, but they are more approachable because they can be studied empirically.
Hard Problems Related to Consciousness
Here are some key challenges:
a. Consciousness vs. Unconsciousness
How does the brain transition between states of consciousness, such as sleep, dreaming, and wakefulness?
Why do dreams have meaning or feel vivid, even though they arise in an unconscious state?
b. Integration
How does the brain integrate information from multiple sources (e.g., vision, sound, memory) into a single unified experience of "self"?
c. Free Will
Is the experience of making choices a real phenomenon, or is it just the brain rationalizing decisions it has already made unconsciously?
d. Brain and Mind Connection
What is the exact relationship between the physical brain (neurons, chemicals) and the non-physical mind (thoughts, emotions, awareness)?
Why These Problems Matter
Consciousness lies at the heart of what it means to be human. While science has made great strides in understanding brain mechanisms, it still cannot fully explain the nature or origins of consciousness, leaving room for philosophical, spiritual, and metaphysical interpretations.
There is significant scientific research suggesting that our brains initiate decisions before we become consciously aware of them.
Key Research Findings:
Benjamin Libet's Experiments (1980s): Libet's studies demonstrated that the brain's readiness potential (a measure of preparatory neural activity) occurs several hundred milliseconds before individuals consciously decide to perform a voluntary action. This implies that the initiation of actions begins unconsciously.
Subsequent Studies: Later research has reinforced Libet's findings, showing that brain activity can predict a person's decision before they are consciously aware of it. For instance, a study from Caltech notes, "Several studies have shown that brain activity indicates what a person will choose, before they are consciously aware of the choice."
Predictive Brain Activity: Research from 2008 found that patterns in the prefrontal and parietal cortex could predict a person's decision up to seven seconds before they became aware of it.
These findings suggest that what we perceive as conscious decision-making may actually be the result of unconscious neural processes. This challenges the traditional concept of free will, raising questions about the extent to which our choices are autonomously made.
Ongoing Debate:
The interpretation of these findings is a topic of active debate. Some argue that while the brain initiates actions unconsciously, conscious awareness still plays a role in modifying or vetoing these actions. Others suggest that free will may be an illusion, with decisions predetermined by neural activity. Which I say is governed by divine will.
Taqdeer as the Driving Force:
1. Quranic Foundation:
Islam teaches that taqdeer is the divine plan ordained by Allah, and everything in the universe operates within His knowledge and will. The Quran states:
> “Indeed, all things We created with predestination” (Surah Al-Qamar 54:49).
This verse implies that every action, thought, and event is within the realm of Allah’s decree.
2. Scientific Corroboration:
Recent neurological studies suggesting that the brain acts before conscious awareness can be interpreted as evidence of taqdeer. If our decisions are initiated before we are aware of them, it supports the idea that an unseen force, or Allah’s divine will, governs our actions beyond our immediate comprehension.
3. Balance of Free Will and Divine Decree:
Islam emphasizes a delicate balance between free will and fate. While humans are responsible for their actions, their capacity to choose operates within the boundaries of Allah’s decree. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said:
> “The pens have been lifted, and the pages have dried.”
This Hadith reflects that Allah’s knowledge encompasses all things, but humans still experience choice, making them accountable.
4. Taqdeer and the Unconscious Mind:
If scientists observe that unconscious brain processes precede conscious decisions, Muslims can argue that these processes are part of the qadr of Allah. The unseen mechanisms of the brain reflect the perfection of His creation and the intricacy of His plans, aligning with the Quranic verse:
> “And they cannot encompass a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:255).
5. Philosophical Resolution:
While science may explore "how" decisions are made, it does not answer "why" they occur or the ultimate purpose behind them. Taqdeer provides this answer: all actions and events are directed toward a divine purpose, beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
By framing taqdeer as the force behind human decision-making, you can bridge the gap between science and spirituality, showing how Islamic beliefs complement scientific discoveries rather than contradicting them. This perspective highlights the limitations of human understanding and the infinite wisdom of Allah. Subhan Allah.
1. The Brain: Materialistic Perspective
The brain is a physical organ composed of neurons, synapses, and neural networks. It operates on electrochemical signals and is studied through neuroscience.
Key Points in Favor of Brain's Materiality:
Physiological Basis of Thought:
Modern neuroscience has mapped regions of the brain responsible for specific functions like memory, speech, emotions, and decision-making. For example, damage to the prefrontal cortex affects judgment and personality.
Neuroimaging Evidence:
Techniques like fMRI and EEG show that every thought, decision, or emotion corresponds to neural activity.
Drugs and Brain Alteration:
Psychotropic drugs and anesthesia can alter consciousness, suggesting that the mind’s activities are rooted in the brain’s chemistry.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Analogy:
AI systems mimic cognitive functions, supporting the idea that mental processes could be entirely material and computational.
2. The Mind: Beyond Materialism
The mind is often viewed as encompassing consciousness, self-awareness, and subjective experiences that go beyond the physical brain.
Key Points for Mind’s Non-Material Nature:
Consciousness and the Hard Problem:
Neuroscience struggles to explain qualia—the subjective experience of sensations (e.g., the “redness” of red). This is known as the “hard problem of consciousness.”
Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences:
Testimonies from people who report experiences during clinical death suggest consciousness can exist independently of brain activity.
Intentionality and Free Will:
While the brain processes signals, the mind is believed to guide purpose, meaning, and decisions, which cannot be fully explained by neural networks.
Philosophical Dualism:
Philosophers like René Descartes argued for a dualistic view: the mind (non-material) interacts with the brain (material) but is not reducible to it.
---
3. Challenges to Pure Materialism
Mind Over Matter:
Placebo effects, where beliefs and thoughts cause physical healing, suggest that the mind influences the body in ways not fully explained by material processes.
Unexplained Phenomena:
Dreams, intuition, and spiritual experiences resist full explanation through neurobiology.
Quantum Consciousness:
Theories like Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR suggest consciousness might involve quantum processes, hinting at a non-material basis.
4. Islamic and Spiritual Perspective
From an Islamic standpoint, the mind or ruh (soul) is distinct from the brain.
The Quran mentions:
> "And they ask you about the soul. Say, ‘The soul is of the affair of my Lord, and mankind has not been given of knowledge except a little.’" (Surah Al-Isra 17:85).
This implies that while the brain governs physical functions, the mind (or soul) is a divine entity beyond human comprehension.
Taqdeer (Destiny):
Human thoughts and actions are guided by Allah’s decree, reflecting the spiritual dimension of the mind.
5. Bridging the Gap: Integrated View
Complementary Interaction:
The brain provides the hardware for mental functions, while the mind (or consciousness) acts as the software or the driver. They work together but are not identical.
Science and Spirituality:
Science explains the mechanisms of the brain but does not answer questions of purpose, morality, or ultimate meaning—areas where spirituality and philosophy step in.
Future Exploration:
Advances in neuroscience may uncover more about the brain-mind connection, but the non-material aspects of consciousness might remain elusive.
Conclusion:
1.
As we can see dreams are not physical, because they are images, visions and sensations of unconscious mind.
2.
Dreams originates in mind which is
Non materialistic part of brain and science does not know anything about it because science only operates into physical realm.
3.
Science does not know consciousness of mind and claiming to know everything related to unconscious mind is not understable. Mind being conscious or unconscious both are out of physical dimension although it's very much related to the brain.
4.
Dreams or unconscious mind or even thoughts of consciousness mind are not materialistic so my opponent's claim to know their nature and origin is baseless.
5.
Dream being not physical suggest that if they are measured or examined physical would not be the realistic approach to deal which is not physical.
6.
As dreams are most probably related to spirit or soul so they might be wholy spiritual, we can conclude them at this point.
7.
Our personal experiences effects dreams, and this category is identified by islam. We can say that our physical existence or parts like brain can effect the dreams. But oh the other hand we can say that our actions can effects our spirit or soul and yet finally effect the unconscious mind so our dreams too.
8.
My opponent shall not feel insult if I mentioned his belief to be atheist.
A person who deny diety and religion and spiritual existence is enough to conclude that the person is atheist.
9.
I mentioned Richard dunkin because my opponent is already talking about science and scientist so talking about someone who even has direct quote about this matter should be relavent.
10.
I have proven that dreams are a product of the unconscious mind which is not physical and not understood by science at any level. So considering them spiritual or metaphysical should be considered more meaningful and proven with multiple verified examples given in this round and previous rounds.
11.
I personally received may spiritual dreams among which I have mentioned one which is very special and profound in my life.
12.
My opponent just presented assumptions and even did not quote the finding by scientist on this matter. Just few modified definitions.
13.
This topic is very vast and impossible to be discussed perfectly in 3 round debate.
14.
I invite voters to read debate completely and reflect unbiased genuine vote in the favour of who deserve to win.
15.
I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone.
16.
I have talked in last round about the most important and driving force of universe is unknown to scientists and even other weak and strong forces are very much unexplained and their origin and physical nature is totally unexplored. We only know from their effect on physical matter.
Slogan:
Islam is best,
Be a Muslim,
And show they are good people.
Aslam o alykum wa rahamat-al-Allah wa barakatho.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con argues that dreams are purely physical phenomena, citing scientific studies that show their role in emotional regulation and memory formation. They emphasize that Pro's reliance on religious texts, like the Quran, and personal anecdotes is problematic because these sources are unverifiable and subjective. Con also points out that similar claims could be made by other religions, which further weakens the credibility of using faith-based arguments. Their insistence on empirical evidence and logical coherence strengthens their case. Pro counters by asserting that some dreams have spiritual or divine significance, particularly in Islam, and provides examples from religious texts, history, and personal experience. While they argue that science cannot fully explain the clarity and predictive nature of certain dreams, their reliance on the Quran and subjective interpretations undermines their persuasiveness. Pro’s strongest point is the argument that the interpretation of dreams, rather than their physiological basis, is key. However, without proving the validity of their religious framework, their arguments rely too much on a “just trust me” approach.
Round 3 Pro attempts to argue that Con is dropping arguments and appealing to authority, but this claim falls flat as Con has adequately addressed the main points. Pro makes a strong argument that dream interpretation is more relevant than the dream itself, but this late-stage argument carries less weight since it wasn’t developed earlier in the debate. Pro also relies on examples of prophetic dreams, such as Abraham Lincoln’s, but these are outliers. Without addressing the billions of ordinary dreams, this argument lacks general applicability. Moreover, Pro’s strongest argument, that science cannot study the divine, remains undermined by their failure to establish the validity of their religious framework. Ultimately, Con provides a more compelling case by staying grounded in evidence and effectively challenging the unverifiable nature of Pro’s arguments. Pro’s points, while intriguing, lack the foundational support necessary to sway my vote.
Debate main points: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12LUgcxDGMRTe1ZNzxvgzJ455Mf_RAttnZjvb7dcvAbI/edit?usp=sharing
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5852/comments/62622
Interesting subject matter, to which my knowledge is a little grey.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments 17 through 22 of this debate.
Albeit after moderation, source vote is now tied.
If either side should read my reasons and find them disagreeable,
Well, votes by people of different views are also valuable in understanding other people's minds and reasons.
Also DART has a page for vote requests, that sees 'slight results 'sometimes.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
There is also the option of suggesting a trade of votes, between oneself and another person looking for votes on their debate.
However such a trade does not mean they will vote for your side in your debate,
Nor that you are obligated to vote for their side in their debate.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As a voter, it is not my job to addbpremises. I will simply use premises given in description and in debate by debaters to form conclusion, conclusion which logically must follow from given premises.
Arguments:
Con starts by saying how most dreams are forgotten. He also says that some people can control their dreams.
However, Con says that personal experiences dont count as valid examples in this debate.
Pro provides a great counter. Apparently, the only way to verify dreams is with personal experience, as science has no way to record or observe dreams. Thus, all evidence related to dreams Con provided is based on personal experience.
So if we reject personal experience, Con's entire case based on personal experiences falls apart and he cannot disprove the possibility of dreams having divine or spiritual meaning, thus he cannot possibly win.
However, if we accept personal experiences as valid, then Pro's case is proved and Pro wins.
This huge contradiction in Con's case and basically "lose or lose" position is essentially what gives win to Pro.
Con uses personal experiences as only evidence for his case while claiming personal experiences arent valid evidence.
Con wants for voters to accept his examples which come from personal experiences, while he also wants us to reject Pro's examples because they come from personal experiences.
"it is absurd to expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something."
Personal experiences are either valid evidence or they are not valid evidence. Neither of these premises given in debate can make Con's case work. Con's case has no possible framework to prove his case, while Pro's framework supports Pro's case.
Pro further proves his case by explaining the limits of science. Logically, if science is in this case limited and incomplete, it cannot at the same time be complete and give complete answer.
This negates Con's case related to any scientific evidence, leaving personal experiences which Con rejects, so basically, nothing is left for Con.
These arguments about limits of science harm Pro's case a bit as well, since it concedes that evidence from general observation simply isnt there other than these personal experiences which are... personal.
However, debate is about the possibility, and Con has completely failed to negate possibility, even destroying his own case with his own argument.
With Con's case being logically negated, the only thing thats left is Pro's case where reported cases of personal experiences support (at least a bit) the possibility of those personal experiences being true.
This debate, as stated in its description, was about possibility, and to say it in a very simple way, undisproved personal experiences support the topic which is about possibility.
Con also dropped many of Pro's arguments, and to vote properly, I must accept as true every premise which was dropped. If the dropped premises had sources supporting them, then even more so. I would be incorrect if I simply ignored Pro's many unchallenged arguments.
So with the task of weighing arguments, Con's lack of case is simply outweighed by Pro's presence of a case.
Some other notes:
"If my opponent acknowledges that we cannot definitively determine whether dreams are divine in nature, then they cannot reasonably claim to disprove their divine origin either."
"If my opponent believes dreams are inherently unverifiable, then I must question the very premise of this debate"
This by Pro captures the essence of Con's case, where Con agrees that dreams exist while not challenging the argument that science cannot observe them. To put it simply, if you cannot verify something, how can you even make a case that it is not possible?
The argument of natural contradicting with supernatural is negated by argument that God can control both.
Added note: I have ignored the video argument Con gave. As a voter, I have no obligation to accept arguments in video form, as that makes it much harder for me to vote and might even be used to cheat and to break character limit.
This vote pretty much includes all of Con's arguments which were relevant to the point of debate, and Pro's counters to them. Some arguments went way off topic on both sides. This isnt a topic about Islam specifically, or about Christianity. I cannot accept premises which have nothing to do with the conclusion (topic) of a debate, even if those premises are in debate.
Arguments to Pro.
Legibility was a tie. Both cases were easy enough to read.
Sources are a tie, given that both debaters used sources. I dont buy the idea that "scientific sources" are more valid when it was clearly established that science cannot verify dreams.
Conduct was a tie. No significant insults, personal attacks or incorrect behaviors have occured.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Yes, I changed my decision. WF messaged me and said the reasoning for sources was insufficient. I looked back over the debate to elaborate on my vote, which is what changed my mind on how to evaluate this. I'll stick to the points that made me change his to a tie, which should be sufficient per voting standards. However, my old vote is in the comments, so you can see more detail on my thought process there.
Pro did actually make a non-circular argument for the Quran's reliability, specifically the predictions made in Daniel from a supposed dream. There's room for Con to argue the book was written after the events that are described (a lot of scholars make that argument), or that it's not specific enough, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Pro.
Con on the other hand argues that making men out of mud violates the laws of thermodynamics. There's room for Pro to argue that Allah can violate the laws of thermodynamics since he performs miracles all the time in the Quran, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Con. This isn't relevant to the personal experience argument, but as I addressed in my previous round, the only argument Pro makes outside the Quran and before the last round is their own experience, and a single anecdote could easily be luck as Con points out.
Since both sides drop significant arguments for and against the Quran's reliability as a source, I'm leaving this as a tie. Other arguments largely boil down to Pro and Con each asserting what is and isn't commonly used in scientific discussions, but I don't care as much about precedent as about which sources can be shown to be reliable for and against the resolution. And as I showed above, both sides drop arguments on that front.
Besides, you should not have insulted me from the start. So, thank you for admitting to something you just denied.
Besides, when I told you to stop messaging me, you ignored me and claimed you didn't care and that it was "justice" to harass me.
Yeah, you did. Seriously, you just called me a blackmailer! I don't get how you think you can insult, apologize, then insult again and think you're in the clear, but that's just not how things work.
I am out of here this guy has gone mad, even before and now, why not message those comments in which you started insulting me so I become toxic as you called me toxic.
I am talking with whiteflame and other person I did not tag him . He was suppose to leave the site which he claimed. He is that much mad when it's tie he probably get heartache if he will loose.
Probably this is complete shit.
I am out of here, I can't handle it anymore
I already apologised about it, then I refrain insulting anymore, but after that did I?
Do you see what I'm dealing with here? I have told you he keeps insulting me and doing everything he can to be annoying. You have told him that he is being problematic. What's his response? To continue the same behavior, and now he's falsely claiming I'm blackmailing him. Please do something as a moderator and make this stop. It's been going on for days now, and I think we've all had enough. This kills the fun of debating.
This debate from 2 vote within then 10 points against me, reached to 3 points against me. It shows I was loosing and I have researched 90000 words on this topic and count my opponent, in first round what is his input and effort. And then in 2nd round most part is my quotes.
And in 3rd part it's almost forfeit by giving just video.
You can see, if a person dedicate himself for some topic and yet I was complaining about lack of space and rounds, then I assume it's his right to become concerned. Right?
In fact I should be even more frustrated, because something happens with me all the time because I am Muslim. I am sure you did not forget the debate which I had with Lancelot. Those in just votes are still there. And in there debate I even had 5 rounds and more efforts.
If this mess is going to happens every single time I debate, should it not be frustrating ?
My opponent is playing emotional blackmailing card here. I would say he is the most frustrated here. When he was winning he was chill. When it becomes tie he become so Kuch disappointed that he is rage quitting. If I had won probably something worst on his part could happen with him.
I have that much of sense, to see am I winning or loosing. Tbh BK out it in great way and even I am astonished how she can interpret my argument and she is very much intelligent.
Thanks to Allah we have people like her active on this website. Shila is another example. So I did not loose complete hope. I hope new debates would not be much troubles. Probably I should debate with people I already know and know their personality, it's more appropriate.
This debate is tie for me so no gain for me at all.
In fact such a mess and drag should let me feel discouraged. But the people I mentioned let have some hope. And I also feel satisfied with moderation of whiteflame. He is not much active, obviously everybody has his or her personal life and getting busy in it is natural, no complain about it.
Heres proof he insulted and harassed me.
Insults:
"This guy is so lazy."
"Probably you are a kid, you do not know what you are saying and what that means."
"Kid grow up, you are asking me to give you physical evidence for a dream, lmao."
"Do not cry bro."
"Kid, you are already fked in debate why eating my brain here, you have not seen my toxicity yet. It's better you stop your poop eating monkey brain. And get the fk out of here."
Need I go on cause I can quote more?
Now the harassment:
Me: Please stop texting me. I enjoy a debate and argument but this is just pointless and obsessive. I'm not responding anymore after this comment.
Him: I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Me: I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
Him again: Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
There you go harassment and bullying.
A) I really don't have to look far to see what you've done right here. It's pretty clear that you've made a very large and expansive effort to call out someone who voted against you and the back-and-forth with Americandebater has been... acrimonious. You're clearly frustrated. Even if you feel that it's warranted, this is more than a bit much, and you've continued to ping him over and over despite requests to stop.
B) I've explained my decision and pointed out that voters are not required to cover every single point presented in the debate to have a sufficient RFD. Voters are required to show that they read and considered a variety of arguments presented throughout the debate, and Lemming's vote is clearly not based on just a single source that you presented. I disagree that "adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor" and I think a lot of voters would also disagree with that view. I could see how those points would be perceived as new arguments, but it's not up to me to make that call.
C) Why do you think both Savant and Lemming modified their votes? I sent PMs to both of them and explained why their votes were problematic. They chose how they wanted to handle it. If that's not intervention enough for you, that's one thing, but let's not pretend that I just sat on my hands here.
Understood. If this isn't a good experience for you, then I wish you the best wherever life takes you.
I did not harass anyone, when a person engaged with someone on some topic and going through some process and sudden mood swing, which your are not aware of even before referring that person, like when I was writing and did not refresh my page I send my reply to AD24, then I stopped after seeing he do not want to engage anymore. if someone accuse you of disrespect harassment and insult, they are very bad traits, they must prove it. He said something to you and you took action without investigating it? Do you think after so much dishonesty on votes, how could I accept it. While savant removed his points on his own, with savant I had private conversation, it was very nice and he is my friend and with lemming I am going to paste it here, if moderator allow, while AD24 must prove where I insulted him and harassed him.
About your decision about lemming vote to not remove, I do not feel comfortable and I also do not agree. He never responded to my arguments of sciences in entire debate but he only responded on my religious explanation, how can he give vote on secondary arguments but not based on primary argument, while adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor. And I did not add any new argument, I gave arguemnt what my opponent demanded from me which was five ke empirical or scientific study which I did.
I would say honesty is best policy .
If accuser can prove their claim and lemming vote remain untouched then I am will leave this website. Because I am not toxic with good people, I have seen swearing and slandering against me and my religion and my Allah and my prophet, no body took any action while I remain complaining about it.
And whiteflame did not help me in votes, both voters took their point back by themselves while the vote casted in my favour is still under ambiguity and weighted against lemming vote. Lemming vote is based on my quran evidence, how could they be just? It's very tiny part of debate.
I am experiencing significant challenges due to the current lack of substantive debate participation. The few individuals engaging in debate are often unproductive, hindering constructive dialogue. Insufficient moderation exacerbates this issue. Consequently, opportunities for meaningful engagement are severely limited.
Furthermore, even when debates occur, participants frequently fail to engage in good-faith discussion. Despite my commitment to this platform and the value of debate, a laissez-faire approach to moderation is demonstrably ineffective. This platform requires both enhanced monitoring and increased active participation to thrive.
Well, it's your call. I get that you have big problems with my moderation of the site, and I understand your frustrations even if I come down in a different position on the issue. Clearly, my role or lack thereof is contributing to your departure, and for what it's worth, I apologize for my lack of activity on the site.
To be clear, though, I had already warned tigerlord regarding his recent behavior, and I'll state it publicly: harassing debaters and voters is against site rules, and the prolonged effort to string this out, both in the comments here and in PMs, needs to stop.
Personally I've never thought site leadership was bad.
I think the site is just a bit niche, maybe not widely known.
Can be hard to get traction, unless you've already got a weight of population.
At this point, I honestly do not care. I created this debate hoping to have a good discussion and open some minds to other viewpoints. However, all I received for my efforts was insults, religious intolerance, and toxic behavior.
I did everything I could to maintain respect and follow the rules. My opponent did the exact opposite, and the moderators did nothing and did not care. This is precisely why there is virtually no activity on this site.
The moderators don't do anything unless they are complained to, and even then, they only take half measures. Their excuse is that they are "off-hand" in leadership or that it is somehow not their job.
It is self-evident that inadequate site moderation will lead to detrimental consequences.
Therefore, given the lack of activities in this app, the inability to ensure DebateArt remains a place of intellectual decorum by its administrators, and the disrespect I have received from my opponent, who should be reprimanded for his behavior, I will no longer be active on this site after this debate.
I express my gratitude to those users who have maintained ethical conduct and engaged in respectful debate throughout their time on this platform, and I will miss their contributions.
Moderators White Flower and Barney, I express profound disappointment in your leadership. You were entrusted with the critical, albeit challenging, responsibility of maintaining this site's functionality and upholding the honor and integrity of its debates against malicious actors. Your failure stems not from inability, but from a demonstrable lack of commitment. I trust this decision meets with your approval.
Regarding my competitor, I acknowledge my error in judgment. My misplaced confidence in your ability to maintain respectful conduct has resulted in a reassessment of my approach to future collaborations.
A structured debate, followed by a vote and the acceptance of its outcome, would have ensured a more amicable conclusion.
However, you chose instead to mock my ideologies, attack my character, and show an utter lack of human decency. Worst of all, you attacked other people for simply voting for me, citing poor conduct.
I would say you disappoint me, but that would require expectations, which you have proven to lack.
So, by all means, Trigger Lord, enjoy a website that not only does not hold you accountable for your actions but also chooses to allow them. Mods don't care if you act offensively, so feel free. I'm done (however, I have not conceded this debate). I have better things to do than to waste time here.
Thank you all and goodbye.
I'm just going to address both BK's and Lemming's votes in one comment.
Neither is going to be removed at this point. I understand if the debaters felt they gave short shrift to their arguments, I understand if the debaters feel that they were overly dismissive or even outright wrong about what happened at certain points. It is not my job as a moderator to specifically go through each point made an ascertain its accuracy, nor am I making a checklist of every argument and ensuring that the voters covered them to some arbitrary level of sufficiency. So long as the voters covered a great deal of the arguments presented by both sides, explained why they were weighing certain points as greater, and showed at least some due consideration of the points presented by each side, that is sufficient to meet the voting standards of this site for arguments.
Three things that got brought up a few times in messages to me.
If one of the voters did show a distinctly different interpretation of what happened in the debate from reality and based their vote entirely on that reasoning, that could be a basis for removal. Both voters base their decisions on a variety of arguments, and I don't see either of them leaving it up to one misinterpreted point or putting the lion's share of attention on said point.
If one of the voters decided to weigh certain points differently based on whether they were presented for the first time in the final round, that is their prerogative. Voters can decide that new arguments in the final round can receive less weight due to a lack of ability to respond. If they use this to dismiss the entire round, then there is a basis for challenging the vote. If they use this to dismiss large swaths of arguments that were presented before the final round, that is also a basis for challenging it. I don't see that happening with either voter.
While we're at it, someone summarizing their decision doesn't mean that, in that blurb, they cover their reasoning exhaustively. I look at the entire basis for the vote, not just the summary at the end, to determine whether they did their due diligence.
I'm willing to review this decision, but note that I have limited time due to a busy schedule of late.
Comments 151, 157 and 158 cover the 3 rounds. Let me know if I have missed anything. I think I have covered the framework for proof on both sides.
This will deal with round 2, regarding my vote.
Con says Pro relies on subjective experiences and religious interpretations.
Pro repeats that we are discussing spiritual meaning of dreams. Pro says that Con didnt establish any framework to exclude religion from a debate. Pro makes case for religion being relevant to academia.
Con says personal experience is insufficient evidence, that you cant expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something. Con says that if personal experience appears logical, then it doesnt mean its true.
Pro counters by saying that dreams are known to science only because people report them, thus essentially pointing out value of personal experience. Pro points out that its unreasonable to assume that all truth must be scientific to be credible. Pro points out that if something is perfectly logical, then it must follow from premises.nPro says that Con conceded that Pro's case is perfectly logical.
Con makes a case against dreams being from Allah, mentions example of all other religions that have millions of followers who claim to have received dreams from a different entity.
Pro here makes the case for islam and says that Allah guides whoever he wills, also that dreams can come from Shaitan.
Con says that natural process is a contradiction to divinity.
Pro counters by saying nature and natural laws arent separate from Allah, thus no contradiction.
Con says there is a gap between scientist considering dreams as nothing more than brain activity, and Islam considering some dreams spiritual or divine.
Pro counters and points out that science is unequipped to study spiritual or divine aspects of dreams.
Pro asks a question "Has anyone ever invented a device capable of verifying dreams?", points out that there is no method or device which can measure content of dreams. Pro points out that dismissing spiritual or divine nature of dreams without evidence is just as speculative as affirming it. Pro also points out that many theories in science arent based on direct observation.
Con starts making a case of Quran contradicting with known facts.
Pro counters by saying that source of spirituality isnt the topic, but spirituality itself is the topic. Pro also says there is evidence which supports the existence of God, but doesnt expand much on it. Pro also adds that science is limited.
Con points out that by Pro's standard, anything someone dreams could be regarded as divine. Con says that its logically inconsistent to say that you can receive messages from an all-powerful deity only in limited manner with limited reception.
Pro covers this in a separate response when saying that its basically applying purpose to argue against divine dreams.
Con says that Pro cannot actually prove the existence of Shaytan, and that nightmares are normal and explainable.
Pro counters by saying that there are millions of testimonies from different eras, cultures and regions of world regarding demons, which cannot be dismissed as mass delusion or coincidence. Says that these accounts point to phenomena beyond our current scientific comprehension. Pro points out that science cannot fully explain massless particles like ultraviolet, infrared... This points to limitation of science. To quote Pro: "If science cannot understand nature of energy or photons, how can it categorically reject existence of entities made from such elements... Lack of knowledge is not basis for denial".
Con makes the case that Pro's dream of earthquake didnt predict the earthquake which happened after dream, and that dreaming isnt proof of anything.
Pro claims that Islamic theology provides an explanation for spiritual significance of dreams. Pro shows link to a dream which exposed history of mankind. Pro provides many quotes from Quran.
Conclusion from round 2:
Both debaters here focused a lot on Quran, and Con did provide a challenge to Quran, but it was essentially a safe play for Pro. If Con disproves Quran, Pro loses nothing, and if Con doesnt disprove Quran, it opens a possibility of Allah influencing dreams. Even if I accept Con's claim that Quran contradicts with known facts, it still isnt proof against dreams being divine or spiritual. Its just a defense move. Framework for disproving that dreams are spiritual or divine isnt made.
This round very much points out 4 important things: 1. Personal experiences are the only way to verify dreams. 2. Its unreasonable to reject everything not proved by science. 3. Science is limited, cannot observe dreams or spiritual, thus cannot disprove it. 4. There are mass cases of people experiencing spiritual things.
This negates Con's framework, and establishes a case on personal experience which creates possibility, which is further extended to round 3.
I am going to address round 1 arguments in my vote, and then I will move on to round 2, and that should be it.
Con makes a very short case in round 1.
According to Con's source, dreams are nothing more than images and stories created by our mind.
Pro negates this by saying that scientific studies on dreams focus on physical aspects, but do not disprove the existence of divine dreams.
Con proves that 95% of dreams are forgotten.
Pro responds to this by saying that if most dreams are forgotten, then that doesnt negate the existence of divine or meaningful dreams.
Pro does say that there are some dreams which lack spiritual or divine element.
Con claims that dreams are easily manipulated, that person can control his dream. Con also makes an example of asking questions to people who were aware that they were asleep.
Pro responds by saying that the ability to manipulate dreams through lucid dreaming is limited to self-originated dreams, does not negate existence of true dreams.
Now, the argument that "if Allah controls the universe, then influencing dreams is not beyond His power" sounds like Pro is asking Con to disprove Allah's existence to disprove the possibility of Allah influencing dreams.
Pro mentions some stories of people predicting things with dreams.
He also mentions his own experience.
My conclusion from round 1:
The personal examples mentioned in round 1 have definitely set some basis for proving possibility in later rounds.
Con builds his case on majority of dreams, but obviously Con's case doesnt include all dreams, as Pro points out, which leaves a gap in Con's argument.
Con's source which deals with dreams being nothing more than images and stories created by the mind, I would accept if Pro didnt challenge it, but Pro did challenge it by saying it deals with physical aspects only.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
Any action against it?
Indeed, thanks
Its fine. I just want to do a vote properly so it meets the required standard and so that Con has nothing to complain about.
It is expected for votes to be challenged. It happens all the time.
I am sorry I have dragged you into this mess.
New updated vote includes video from round 3 and its points.
I will address round 1 and 2 in detail later today, so that should have everything covered.
Here is an updated vote:
The debate is about possibility existing or not, as mentioned in description.
Con mentions sources showing natural cause of dreams.
Pro counters by saying how science can study brain activity and physiological changes, but it cannot access the actual content of dreams.
It is impossible to classify dreams as spiritual or non-spiritual by using science.
Occuring in brain doesnt mean dreams are material.
Con says that Pro is required to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meaning.
Says that Islam and personal stories arent a sufficient form of evidence.
Pro counters by saying that dreams have forseen historical evidence with precision.
Gives examples of dreams predicting events, dreams that came true.
Con points out flaws in using religion as evidence.
Con says science cant study or measure spirituality because science can only meassure what can be physically observed.
Con says that science even in early times wasnt based on religion.
Says that science and religion do not mix.
"Religion isnt science."
Con says that non-scientific evidence isnt valid.
Con challenges Pro to show an instance where personal story is considered valid as evidence.
Pro counters this easily by saying that personal perception is obviously valid for a person. Pro shows that personal experieces are sometimes true, with examples where personal experiences are true even if not observed by science, such as how does it feel to taste sweetness or to see red.
This makes me come to conclusion that personal experience can be true even if not observed by science, thus some possibility of being true is proved to exist.
Con says that people can tell anything, and trusting then is an unwise mindset which leaves you open to manipulation.
However, this doesnt negate the fact that some personal experiences are obviously true.
Con mentions that physical evidence is needed before considering something as a fact. Says that stories do not meet that standard.
Pro provides example of neuroscientist claiming dreams are outside the realm of neuroscience. This serves as an additional counter to Con's claim that science has observed dreams.
More so, example of psychologist claiming dreams can have spiritual relevance. Hence, possibility exists.
Then another example which says consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical process alone.
Con says it would be absurd to suggest that hearsay is to be taken as valid in courts, and that logic needs empirical evidence in order to be true.
Con shows example of logic with sharks where logic is proved false, even if before proof appeared, such logic was considered perfect.
Con says that he doesnt need to disprove personal experiences, and that he didnt call an opponent a liar, but simply that personal experience cannot be treated as true since we cannot know what happened, it lacks verification, we cannot know what happened in a personal story.
Shows studies of link between dreams, emotions and memories that do not have a divine factor.
Says that dreams serve people to prevent health issues and to regulate emotions.
Con mentions EEG and MRI.
Pro responds in multiple places, one by saying that even if they could scan brain's imaginary, thoughts and sensations, it would still mean that dream being spiritual or normal one is subjective.
Pro points out that studies dont explain why dreams contain meaningful or predictive content.
Con makes a point that mass and energy relationship isnt matter and energy relationship.
Con says that Pro's arguments do not demonstrate anything divine or spiritual.
Con says that saying that we cannot determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession, because opponent still cannot prove that dreams are divine.
Repeats that perfectly logical argument is not the same as being true.
Con starts responding to points about atheism. I dont see how talk about atheism is even relevant to this debate.
Con says that opponent didnt prove the divine nature of dreams, and that opponent relies on hearsay.
My conclusion on round 3:
From all this, I understand that Con very much agrees that spirituality cannot be observed by science.
So if spirituality cannot be observed by science, how am I supposed to form a conclusion that science says spirituality isnt there?
Pro was right in noticing that when Con says spirituality cannot be observed or measured, Con destroys his own case of trying to disprove spirituality with science.
If Con agrees that spirituality isnt physical and that science can only observe physical things, how then do his scientific examples prove lack of spirituality?
Additionally, with some personal examples being obviously true even if not observed by science, it means it is possible that some personal examples are true, thus it proves that personal experiences have possibility of being true, thus personal experiences of spiritual have possibility od being true.
I was informed by mod that I have to add video to my vote, as well as include more points from previous rounds.
So I will release an update to my vote in comments which covers all Con's arguments and many of Pro's arguments.
I’ve read the first round, and have started notes for a vote. I expect the have some time tomorrow read the rest.
Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I have asked you to stop communicating with me, and you are still doing so. This is clearly harassment, and I have notified the moderators. My advice is to stop now. You are being disrespectful, and I have no desire to communicate with you further. At this point, I do not care if you win or not, as you are only annoying me. Leave me alone.
I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Last round was not considered by lemming as well from my side and adding new argument is bad practice if instigated intro new arguments no defending. It's inevitable for defender and responder though I extended them from my 2nd round which my opponent neglected even from 2nd round
Please stop texting me. I enjoy a debate and argument but this is just pointless and obsessive. I'm not responding anymore after this comment.
See the lemming neglected and dropped my 3rd round too.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
What is special in video, just same repetition.
He himself claimed he did not put any rule in debate and whiteflame told me that video could be considered at FF if voter deems it
06:04 Speaker 1
issues and regulating emotions rather than messages from an unverified God.
06:09 Speaker 1
Now, I don't know about you voters, but I think that studies from universities and results found
06:13 Speaker 1
from using EEG and MRI techniques serves as just a little bit more concrete than the Quran
06:19 Speaker 1
when it comes to physical matters such as dream states. Now, I want to address my opponent's
06:23 Speaker 1
misrepresentation of my opponent's views on the subject of dreams and emotions. I would like to
06:24 Speaker 1
ask him to tell us what he thinks about the concept of dreams and emotions.
06:25 Speaker 1
They try to argue that E equals mc squared establishes that matter can be converted into
06:31 Speaker 1
energy. However, this is a falsehood. E equals mc squared does not establish the relationship
06:37 Speaker 1
between matter and energy. It actually establishes the relationship between mass and energy.
06:42 Speaker 1
It also does not demonstrate that demons such as the djinn are real. Everything in thermodynamics
06:48 Speaker 1
is physical, and in order to argue that the concept of demons can be supported by physics,
06:54 Speaker 1
they exist in a physical state. And when it comes to things like gods and demons, these things are
06:59 Speaker 1
not physical for thermodynamics to apply. My opponent also lied in their argument. They
07:04 Speaker 1
claim that I conceded a point, which is not true at all. They claim that since I said that we cannot
07:09 Speaker 1
determine that dreams are divine, I somehow relinquished my ability to refute their claim.
07:14 Speaker 1
However, considering they have shown their willingness to cherry pick and delete my words
07:18 Speaker 1
when trying to offer refutation, this is a false argument. In actuality, saying that we cannot
07:24 Speaker 1
determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession. It's actually consistent with my
07:29 Speaker 1
stance because I am saying that my opponent cannot prove it. Not that we cannot determine it,
07:34 Speaker 1
and therefore it is real. At no point did I ever concede about dreams in the debate.
07:39 Speaker 1
I also never said the pro's argument was perfect in logic. I only stated that even if you make a
07:44 Speaker 1
perfectly logical argument, it is still not the same as being true since truth is not determined
07:49 Speaker 1
by logic. Another point of interest in my opponent's argument is that throughout their argument they've
07:54 Speaker 1
accused me of bias and intellectual dishonesty. However, that is rich coming from my opponent,
07:59 Speaker 1
who has not only argued solely against my argument, but has also argued against my argument.
03:01 Speaker 1
since this will be the last argument I can present. My opponent claimed in rebuttal 3
03:06 Speaker 1
that their evidence is factual and that my refusal to accept non-scientific evidence
03:11 Speaker 1
is a flawed understanding of what constitutes evidence. I find this argument very amusing
03:16 Speaker 1
because the non-scientific evidence that they claim I am refusing to consider
03:21 Speaker 1
is a mix between a personal story on their account and religious bias. I challenge my opponent,
03:26 Speaker 1
however, to show any instance where a personal story is considered factual and valid.
03:30 Speaker 1
Most societies and people take the view that, in order for something to be taken as fact,
03:35 Speaker 1
there must be evidence that goes far past the words that others tell them. Otherwise,
03:39 Speaker 1
people can tell you anything and no one will be able to fact-check the information.
03:43 Speaker 1
Such a mindset is unwise as it leads you to be open to manipulation.
03:47 Speaker 1
So with respect, it is not that I demonstrated a flawed understanding of evidence.
03:52 Speaker 1
Quite the opposite. My standard of evidence is that I need
03:55 Speaker 1
physical evidence before I will consider something to be fact.
03:58 Speaker 1
A story and teachings from a belief system do not meet that standard.
04:02 Speaker 1
Should people be able to be dragged into courts and declared guilty because of other people's hearsay?
04:07 Speaker 1
If the answer is no, then my opponent's argument is dead in the water.
04:11 Speaker 1
In rebuttal 4, my opponent claimed that the debate is between me and them and not a third party.
04:17 Speaker 1
That's a pretty hypocritical statement considering they themselves invite their
04:20 Speaker 1
god to act as a third party in the debate. They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of truth
04:25 Speaker 1
because they argue that just because their argument is logical and reasonable,
04:29 Speaker 1
then it is enough to make it valid.
04:30 Speaker 1
What my opponent does not realize is that being valid isn't the same as truth.
04:35 Speaker 1
You can have perfect logic and what you're saying is still not factual.
04:39 Speaker 1
The reason for that is due to the nature of logic itself.
04:42 Speaker 1
Logic can indeed be a guiding force for reason,
04:45 Speaker 1
but if relied on solely with no empirical basis or framework, it can justify literally anything.
04:50 Speaker 1
For instance, if I told you that animals have bones and that since sharks are a
04:55 Speaker 1
type of animal, they must therefore have bones themselves, you would not be able to argue
04:59 Speaker 1
against it from a logical perspective. However, studying the anatomy of the shark
05:03 Speaker 1
will prove me wrong, despite my perfect logic. I also never called my opponent a liar just
05:09 Speaker 1
because I dismissed their personal experiences. For me to call them a liar, I have to be accusing
05:13 Speaker 1
them of spreading a falsehood intentionally. However, all I have said so far was that we
05:17 Speaker 1
cannot know what actually happened in a personal story and therefore cannot treat it as true since
05:22 Speaker 1
it lacks verification. That is not the same thing.
05:25 Speaker 1
The same thing is calling someone a liar.
05:27 Speaker 1
Okay, now that I have basically addressed my opponent's arguments,
05:30 Speaker 1
I would like to add my own as for why dreams do not have divine meaning.
05:34 Speaker 1
If you remember, my opponent has made many arguments for why they believe dreams can be
05:39 Speaker 1
both meaningless and divinely inspired. One of their arguments was that dreams are ways for
05:43 Speaker 1
either Allah to communicate with you or evil spirits to mess with you. However, scientists
05:48 Speaker 1
have actually discovered a link between dreaming and memories and emotions that do not have a divine
05:54 Speaker 1
Recent studies under the name The Science Behind Dreaming have discovered that while dreams are
05:59 Speaker 1
indeed tied to memories and emotions, it serves primarily to keep people from developing health
00:01 Speaker 1
Hello voters. Due to the long nature of this debate, I decided to make a video dedicated
00:05 Speaker 1
to my arguments on the subject of dreams having divine messages or not. The first thing I would
00:10 Speaker 1
like to address is the pro's false claims of restricting them to a biased perspective.
00:15 Speaker 1
This assertion is untrue, as I have made no rules dictating how they would present their arguments.
00:20 Speaker 1
The only requirement of pro was to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meanings behind
00:24 Speaker 1
them. My position has been based on scientific research that was backed up with sources showing
00:29 Speaker 1
the natural causes of dreams. Pro has responded by arguing that Islam and a personal story were
00:34 Speaker 1
sufficient evidence to establish the divine nature of dreaming. So if anyone is coming from a place
00:39 Speaker 1
of bias, it is my opponent who uses subjective forms of evidence rather than empirical research.
00:45 Speaker 1
The second thing I would like to address is the claim that I never excluded religion,
00:49 Speaker 1
and the implication that I am trying to limit the scope of their argument. While it is true that I
00:53 Speaker 1
never said my opponent could not use religion, I am also not limiting their argument simply because
00:58 Speaker 1
I offer rebuttals to them. I am not limiting their argument simply because I offer rebuttals to
00:59 Speaker 1
arguments based on religion. As a matter of fact, I expected it. However, just because you are
01:03 Speaker 1
allowed to use religion in your argument for divine nature of dreams, it does not mean that
01:08 Speaker 1
I can't point out flaws in doing so. So my opponent is really trying to claim victimhood
01:12 Speaker 1
where none exists. My opponent has also said that science has not studied religion and is not
01:17 Speaker 1
equipped to do so, going so far as to say scientists cannot directly measure or observe
01:22 Speaker 1
their spiritual significance. This is completely true, but not for the reasons they think.
01:26 Speaker 1
The reason science cannot study religion,
01:29 Speaker 1
is because science can only study what can be physically observed. Spirituality does not meet
01:34 Speaker 1
that standard. So it's not that scientists are unequipped, it is because nothing in spirituality
01:39 Speaker 1
can be physically observed to form a theory on them. My opponent's attempt to undermine the
01:43 Speaker 1
capabilities of science really works against their own argument. I will now address their
01:47 Speaker 1
second rebuttal claiming that historically the earliest universities and academic institutions
01:52 Speaker 1
were founded on religious principles. They even go so far as to boldly claim that, even today,
01:57 Speaker 1
religious studies remain a vital academic discipline, with PhD programs and rigorous
02:01 Speaker 1
research dedicated to the field. This entire argument is nothing more than sophistry.
02:06 Speaker 1
While it may be true that early-day academics and university was ruled under theocratic leadership,
02:11 Speaker 1
the actual academics of study were not. For example, even back during the medieval era,
02:16 Speaker 1
no teacher or academic claimed that the reason 2 plus 2 equals 4 is because gods created the
02:21 Speaker 1
universe to work that way. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 no matter what religion you subscribe to,
02:27 Speaker 1
or what religion you are a follower of, or what religion you are a follower of, or do not. It is also
02:28 Speaker 1
why religion and academics do not mix. Religion is supported by beliefs while academics are
02:34 Speaker 1
discovered through rigorous studying and understanding. My opponent also claims that
02:38 Speaker 1
theology is an intellectual pursuit. That claim can be true if one is solely trying to understand
02:43 Speaker 1
the ideologies of the religion in question. However, that is not true when talking about
02:48 Speaker 1
non-theocratic fields. After all, can you remember the last time religion helped you
02:52 Speaker 1
in a biology class, much less came up? Because I certainly do not.
02:56 Speaker 1
I will address two more of my opponent's rebuttals before moving on to my own arguments,
Last 2 min was not transcribed by the software. Could not paste whole so will do in few message
I transcribed the video from my opponent and responded it in 3rd round, there was nothing new most of repeated arguments.
If you want I can paste here for you to see.
I have responded it and he neglected a lot of things from my 2nd round while I shifted my stances according to my opponent's demand into scientific. I always do that for all debates I always compare spiritual with material. First spiritual then material. My opponent thought I have only 1 argument under my sleeves. But I was going to respond according to science as I know atheist do not believe in spirituality even though the the topic at hand is spirituality yet they even do not begin to talk about it by saying it do not exist and consider themselves true by default. Which my opponent did and I point out this overconfidence which every single atheist show.
It's a process, please be patient.
My report didn't get addressed yet
Yep, my mistake. Corrected.
>Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Vote lemming not savant
You are absolutely right. Thanks for getting into this headache, it was such a drag.
Thank everybody :)
>Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
See comments 17 through 22 of this debate.
If either side should read my reasons and find them disagreeable,
Well, votes by people of different views are also valuable in understanding other people's minds and reasons.
Also DART has a page for vote requests, that sees 'slight results 'sometimes.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
There is also the option of suggesting a trade of votes, between oneself and another person looking for votes on their debate.
However such a trade does not mean they will vote for your side in your debate,
Nor that you are obligated to vote for their side in their debate.
Reason for Removal: The voter has been given the go-ahead to re-post his vote awarding only arguments, as his vote is more than sufficient in meeting the standards for awarding those points.
**************************************************
I think I proved here that watching video argument would change nothing in my vote. Con was unable to bring up anything in comments which would make me think that we can observe dreams, let alone their causes.
Per debate's description, this debate was about possibility itself, and I dont see how is Con even supposed to prove that there is no possibility, or make a case for it being impossible.
Simply put, personal experiences arent the best evidence, but they certainly weigh more than complete lack of proof on Con's side.
Not only they can't see dreams while sleeping it's far beyond but they even can't see even a person is awake. Lol what they do they just construct images or something after mapping stimuli of other people who when watch or see something and their brain shows activity.
And try to ruplicate it
Otherwise seeing dream or thought or vision in mind is equal to seeing consciousness which is impossible.
The hard problem or consciousness has never been solved..
I am still not sure how this will be resolved, but I think I explained everything I needed to explain. If Con wants to extend on this, he can start a new debate called "Science can observe dreams".
I have literally never seen a machine which shows exact things person dreams, so obviously there is no full observation of any kind.
Your last message was epic for this, nothing more was needed but still I thought I could relate whatever is within debate to solve the problem.
End of discussion.
I could not sleep lol
But I will sleep after this comment .
Con
According to Medical news today.com dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's created by our minds while we sleep."
Pro
From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep.
Conclusion:
From both definitions we can see dreams are created by the mind.
Mind:
I have talked about it in my debate.
But here is more insight
From a neuroscience perspective, the mind is often described as the result of neural processes within the brain that give rise to consciousness, cognition, emotions, and behavior. Here are some authoritative references:
1. Kandel, Eric R., et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science.
This book discusses the neural basis of mental functions, such as perception, memory, and decision-making.
Relevant quote: "The mind arises from the activity of the brain, and understanding the brain is essential to understanding the mind."
2. Gazzaniga, Michael S., Ivry, Richard B., & Mangun, George R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
Explores the biological mechanisms underlying mental functions like attention, memory, and reasoning.
Relevant quote: "Cognitive neuroscience bridges the gap between the biological brain and the subjective mind."
3. Damasio, Antonio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.
Focuses on how brain processes produce consciousness and emotions.
Relevant insight: Consciousness is tightly linked to the neural networks responsible for perception and emotion.
Conclusion 2
About consciences and unconscious mind which create dreams has been discussed in great detail in my debate plz look.
Cons claim
That dreams are created by brain cannot be proven by science. Process occur in brain during we sleep do not produce dreams as by definition of con and pro both but mind. I have proven mind is not material but consciousness and dreams occur when brain is unconscious means not mindfull which is even more elevated state of non material existence or something which create dreams.
My definition
You can see involuntarily mind creates dreams in my definition while con relates it to experiment where dreamer responds to question. Which scientific research is valid and how can it be related to this case.
Mind is not physical and produce dreams and even the information I provided above are all related to immaterial abilities whether it's conginition thinking ability or memory. Nothing is material in mind.
"And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did."
Its a general knowledge that you cant observe people's dreams. It was enough for Pro to mention it for voters to accept it, but Pro also gave the explanation of science being limited. Besides, your argument depended on proving that you can observe dreams, and after reading the debate I didnt find any premise which leads to conclusion that you can observe dreams.