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.
"My arguments never relied on personal experience. They relied on fields of study and tests that were conducted by scientists in those fields."
It was already explained in debate that science cant observe dreams, thus any argument about observing dreams can only be personal experience.
"According to your own logic, you had no reason not to listen to what I said"
The reasons were explained in the vote. The video makes it harder for me to vote, and enables cheating.
"because every link I provided was accompanied by a written argument until round three."
And I have accepted every round except your round 3.
"Second, a link to a video is not "a bunch of links.""
You are right. One link is not a bunch of links, and neither of the two are arguments.
"Third, there is no way to make a video on this site without providing a link"
This isnt a video site. This is a text debate site.
"Besides, we both know the real reason is due to our innate biases"
You concede to being biased?
"and the fact that you are a troll on here."
Not sure why are you insulting voters. I never insulted you.
"You have no legitimate cause to argue"
I need a cause?
"Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate."
I didnt say its a "violation". I simply said I reject it because it wasnt written in debate.
"I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate."
You can use it as much as you want. I just dont have to accept it as a voter.
"Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it."
Well, a text debate does mean a text debate.
"White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change."
Whiteflame is not "White flower". But if Whiteflame says that I must accept something not written in debate as part of a debate, then sure, I will make a new vote which includes your video as well.
"So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it."
Oh, I am not even messaging you. I am merely explaining my vote. So if you dont want me to explain my vote, I dont see why did you message me in the first place.
As I said, I am not debating with this with you anymore because your just a toxic troll and I am done hearing these stupid arguments that serve no purpose.
"I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. "
So now you cant see them?
"I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity"
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
", which are affected by dreams."
Monitoring things affected by something isnt the observation of that something.
"I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it."
Okay, so you cant see dreams.
"For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it."
Measuring wind has nothing to do with measuring brain activity.
"So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself."
Maybe because dreams and wind arent same things.
You also cant even observe all brain activity, so I am not sure what confuses you.
Do me a favor and just stop. I'm not capable of continuing an argument this unintelligent and repetitive. You've made your decision to be as toxic as usual, and we will see what the moderators do with it. Just so you know as well, the moderator who will be reviewing this has also agreed to review the comments that you have made, which I believe will further strengthen my point. So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it.
"It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected."
Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate. I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate. Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it. White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change.
"There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments."
That's because the link is not the argument. The video is.
"If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself."
According to your own logic, you had no reason not to listen to what I said, because every link I provided was accompanied by a written argument until round three. Second, a link to a video is not "a bunch of links." Third, there is no way to make a video on this site without providing a link, so your argument is self-defeating at best. Besides, we both know the real reason is due to our innate biases and the fact that you are a troll on here. You have no legitimate cause to argue but to argue it is the very reason I don't bother debating with you and literally anything that you do.
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. Your whole argument for me making a contradiction was that my argument of personal experience somehow falls apart. My arguments never relied on personal experience. They relied on fields of study and tests that were conducted by scientists in those fields. Ergo, not my personal experience or based on a single individual. The only reason you call it a personal experience is because you refuse to acknowledge that you can observe something even if you cannot physically see it. There go. There was no contradiction except for your own backwards logic, which is apply to what I said.
Personal experience arguments requires either I'm basing it off of something I personally experienced, or an individual. I mentioned neither myself nor an individual in my arguments, and therefore there was no contradiction.
"Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true?"
It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected.
"right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text."
There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments.
"you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given."
If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself.
If you think otherwise, thats just your opinion, and when you vote, you can apply it.
"So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so."
I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity, which are affected by dreams. I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it. For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it. So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself.
"Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams"
Pro may have said that, however, my links which go into fields of study negate that because it goes outside of hearsay. So pro didn't actually explain anything. They merely said what they thought, and they had no scientific evidence to back it up. In contrast, I had scientific proof to show that we have the ability to monitor dreams through brain activity. So scientifically speaking, they are the same thing. And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did.
"As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples"
Rank, which isn't true because I have provided evidence of scientists not only monitoring dreams through brain activity, but also performing experiments. So it's not personal experience examples because nothing I just said was based on personal experience. Everything I said was based on scientific fields of study, which is not a personal experience.
"such as some people being able to control what they dream."
Lucid dreaming is not a personal experience. Secondly, I justified that by providing a field of study that showed people being able to respond to people while asleep and dreaming. So no matter how you slice it, I never used a personal experience example. You simply call it a personal experience example because you refuse to acknowledge that scientists have the ability to monitor brain activity, which is considered to be equal to monitoring dreams. So your logic is faulty, and your claims are once again false.
"Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning."
Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams.
""In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur""
So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so.
"So no written arguments."
I'm sorry, but is English not your forte? Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true? Did you also miss the part where I told you that I've already received a private message letting me know that you are not allowed to ignore videos just because they are not written?
"My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote."
right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text. something that was both completely valid according to the rules of the science and also a rule violation as you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given.
"That doesnt mean you can observe dreams."
Yes, it does. because we can monitor brain activity through an EGG machine. and you thus need brain activity in order to dream that we monitor dreams through brain activity. Next thing you're going to tell me is that just because you need a needle to inject penicillin in the body that does not mean we can actually give people penicillin.
"No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do."
Not what I said. I said that you cannot see in what the other person sees in the dream itself. However, you can still monitor brain activity, which allows you to observe dreams. You're literally trying to argue we can't do things that we literally have machines for simply because you wanna be super technical out of your toxic behavior. No matter how technical you try to make it, the fact still remains that dreams can be monitored via brain activity. Anything else you wanna say? You make is relevant.
"I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies."
As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples, such as some people being able to control what they dream.
"Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction"
It was written in my vote:
"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."
"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."
"Nowhere in this source is dream being observed."
Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning.
"Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream."
Yes it does.
"In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur"
https://www.google.com/search?q=explain+how+montoring+the+brain+is+montioring+dreams+in+science&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1135US1135&oq=explain+how+montoring+the+brain+is+montioring+dreams+in+science&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAtIBCTEzNDgwajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Again, thats not observing dreams."
Again argument debunked.
"That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those."
According to you. However the scientific community says otherwise as my quote and link prove.
"Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else."
By saying that dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena, Pro is acknowledging the scientific point of view without challenging it. If Pro had said "While the scientific view is this" or "However, while the scientific view is this," then Pro would have challenged the scientific view. Therefore, Pro agreed that from a scientific view, dreams are nothing more than images or physical phenomena. Because they did not challenge it, they conceded that perspective as valid even if they did not agree.
"So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
Your own logic beats you."
If that were indeed what I was saying sure. However, that is simply you trying to procrastinate your own ideology onto my own. My proof that we are monitoring brain activity to observe dreams comes from the fact that scientists usually have technology to do so. which I have just given you a link to. And quoted on top of it, you cannot argue against the scientific ability to monitor dreams through brain activity when there's actually methods and technology to do so. So at this point, you're just trying to justify ignorance.
"Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video"
So no written arguments.
"The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid."
My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote.
"Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. "
Thats still not observing a dream. You have already conceded that you cannot see other people's dreams.
"Dreams can't happen without a brain"
That doesnt mean you can observe dreams.
", so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity"
No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do.
"Okay now we have you lying again.
https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-entered-peoples-dreams-and-got-them-talking
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/nightmares-brain"
Nowhere in this source is dream being observed.
"Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity."
Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream.
"We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram"
So now you say you actually cant observe a dream?
"but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams."
Again, thats not observing dreams.
"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."
That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those.
"According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life."
Often =/= always.
"The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge."
Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else.
"How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY."
So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
Your own logic beats you.
Stop strawmaning bro, I have to sleep early today it's 11 pm here, I will discuss everything tomorrow and also lemming RFD as well
"You didnt write an argument, so you concede that your round 3 wasnt valid."
Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video, which is not against the rules. The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid.
"I understand that words confuse you, so you think "monitoring brain" = observing dreams, however thats obviously not true."
Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. Scientists can observe dreams by monitoring brain activity. Dreams can't happen without a brain, so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. So, I apologize that basic education escaped you.
"Which neither means that there was no contradiction in what you said, neither addresses the contradiction."
Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction, we can't presume there is a contradiction for it to be addressed. You know your framework of argument is essential to arguing that someone made a joke that literally no one heard, and therefore it's still valid because it had to have happened even if no one heard it.
The contradiction in such a framework is obvious to anyone who's actually trying to be intellectual.
"It was literally mentioned over and over in the vote. You rejected personal experiences as evidence while using personal experiences as evidence."
I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies. By all means quote me where I used a personal experience for myself or another person as a jet means to justify my position. If he can't do so, then you're obviously lying like you've done so many other times. I don't know what motivates you to act this way BK. But it's not a problem because I've already informed the moderators of your activity you're lying and you're obvious bias towards my position. So regardless of how many times you argue with me, or make a nonsensical argument that is essentially meaningless. your vote and your comments are going to be reviewed and I'm very confident your vote will be removed.
"So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point."
No, it doesn't because the point of that field of study debunks the idea of dreams being influenced by divine messages because dreams can be affected by physical phenomenon in the real world thats the exact opposite of your pont.
"Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal."
The point of the study was not to determine what a person was dreaming about or what they thought they saw. The point was to show that people can respond to the outside world even when they are dreaming. This further supports the idea that dreams are the byproduct of physical experiences and stimuli. Meaning that your dreams are not defined in nature, but rather the result of what you experience in the outside world. which can still simulate what you've encountered in the dream based on what you hear and or told while sleeping.
" Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not. You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic."
Understanding and agreeing are two different concepts. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it's true. If scientists can show that your dream is influenced by what's happening around you while you're sleeping, or even prior to your sleep, then the content of your dream is not real. And because dreams are subjective, you can't prove that any part of them was divinely inspired.
@AmericanDebater
"Yes, however, when you are making an argument that's supported by sources that makes it valid. "
You didnt write an argument, so you concede that your round 3 wasnt valid.
"Your whole claim was that my empirical evidence was negated by the fact that, supposedly, scientists can't monitor the human brain."
I understand that words confuse you, so you think "monitoring brain" = observing dreams, however thats obviously not true.
"The video is the argument the link is simply the method in which you can review it."
My reason for rejection wasnt that I cant review it, but that argument wasnt written in debate itself.
"That is because the other voters didn't find a contradiction in what I said."
Which neither means that there was no contradiction in what you said, neither addresses the contradiction.
"in order for me to address a supposed contradiction. It has to be pointed out and proven"
It was literally mentioned over and over in the vote. You rejected personal experiences as evidence while using personal experiences as evidence.
Thank you for informing me that you supposedly made a video in the second round because that makes BK's arguments even weaker since he is giving you a better argument vote for obvious bias and completely ignored my argument on the basis that I made a video that supposedly doesn't count yet he allowed you to make a video as well.
Also atheism wasn't a factor in this until YOU brought it up. I argued against your position on a purely scientific basis. Not an atheist one. You brought atheism on by mocking my atheistic opinions and then declaring rudely that all who voted for me were atheist as well. I also never negated your dream argument and I addressed it. There was nothing in your argument I did not address.
"Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate."
Yes, however, when you are making an argument that's supported by sources that makes it valid. Your whole claim was that my empirical evidence was negated by the fact that, supposedly, scientists can't monitor the human brain. The fact I post links with arguments that proved otherwise is an argument of itself. If I were not making the argument that scientists can monitor the human brain, why would I post a link that proves it?
"They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument."
Not true in fact, I just had a private conversation with White flower who agreed you can't simply ignore a video argument. Secondly, it is not making a link argument by posting a link as the video. The video is the argument the link is simply the method in which you can review it. I'm sorry, but you're not gonna make a very convincing argument here, especially when you're clearly going against the rules.
"Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case. So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere."
That is because the other voters didn't find a contradiction in what I said. So you're not really making a whole lot of sense there. in order for me to address a supposed contradiction. It has to be pointed out and proven. I have made no such contradictions and therefore you cannot use that as a reason as it lacks any foundation.
"No, you didnt."
Okay now we have you lying again.
https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-entered-peoples-dreams-and-got-them-talking
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/nightmares-brain
"Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams."
Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity. We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams.
"No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams. If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along."
Actually the pro said and I quote
"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."
How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY. Something you both said I never showed and are now lying and saying the Pro did not acknowledge.
Come on brother, my video link was in 2nd round the last link, how atheism got into us.
The link of dream or non believer king was also neglected.
My light arguemnt was also neglected.
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point. Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal. Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not.
You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic.
First of all your argument was the last argument to be made in the debate. So how exactly am I to respond to a personal video? especially in the debate that is over by that point? Secondly, I never dropped any argument whatsoever, which is my entire point. Every argument you made when it was my turn, I addressed. and I offered rebuttals, which again proved that BK is being the incredibly biased.
@AmericanDebater
"I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review"
Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate.
"and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments."
They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument.
Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case.
So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere.
"I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams"
No, you didnt.
"In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions."
Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams.
"More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping."
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
"Pro even acknowledged this."
No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams.
If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along.
"There is nothing scientific been discussed here."
You literally have been arguing that your argument fits well with Islam and science and now you are saying that "nothing scientific" is being discussed here. make up your mind.
"Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here."
Ignoring the fact you're not making any sense at this point. I never said you didn't put any source. I said that you didn't put any scientific based sources to justify your position. All your sources have been either pseudoscience or theologian in nature. And I already proved that by literally going to your sources and researching and finding that they are pseudoscientific in nature or irrelevant to the point you were trying to argue. I'm sorry, but you can't twist what I say because I'm very consistent.
Then why you did not respond my personal video which I posted in my argument also why you completely dropped light arguemnt?
Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here.
Cherry picking some scientist was not my fault. Tbh have those sources written in my draft as well who backed your point and I could analyze them as well in more detail but their was not much space and also 3 rounds as well. That is why I said 3 rounds were not enough.
If 1 scientist back my point that should be enough, only 1 substantial witness is enough in courts for most os cases.
We cannot do anything about it as whatever is in debate judgement should be passed on it. And having chance to respond at last is something which is advantageous sometime. If it would have been 5 rounds then I could do more but I got the edge this time.
"The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored."
Makes zero sense. I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments. So, your claim is both false and still against the rules.
"However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote."
Irrelevant. You still willingly admitted to ignoring arguments, which is a violation and you lied saying I did not challenged Pros arguements despite written evidence saying otherwise.
"Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams."
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
Another fun fact for you: Benjamin Libet himself believed that his theories showed that humans have free will. He believed that we can negate an action at the last second, and that the purpose of his experiments was to show that the brain can unconsciously choose to do an action before a person can actually commit the action. If the debate had been about free will, that would be relevant. However, we are talking about dreams and their meaning, not whether people have free will.
None of it supports religious interpretations of dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
Also his theories remain only theoretical instead of true. https://www.google.com/search?q=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1135US1135&oq=are+benjamin+libets+thoeires+true+or+just+theortical&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgYIBRAhGAoyBwgGECEYjwIyBwgHECEYjwLSAQkyMzQ0MWowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I ask all who read this debate, are dreams physical? Anyone on earth prove me dreams are physical? Something originated from physical body does not mean it is physical just like sadness or love.
@AmericanDebater
"The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally."
The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored.
However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote.
" You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false"
Show me where you addressed the mentioned contradiction of your case.
"However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence"
Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams.
The Quran is not a scientific text, so it cannot be used to prove anything scientific. In fact, using the Quran to support a scientific argument is the most unscientific thing you can do.
There is nothing scientific been discussed here.
This was my point that dreams are not material and is not under the scope or science and they are product of unconscious mind and science do not know about consciousness what about unconscious mind. Science even do not know what mind is science only know about brain not mind. Visions, thoughts and anything which we see in dream originate or occur in brain but we can not detect or see or feel it physically. These things are not material. Dreams are not material.
That was my point and I have proven it scientifically in the debate.
actually that's exactly what source are. you find a website or article (preferably reputable ones) that support your argument and you submit them as a URL for all to see. Anyway now that we have confirmed that you subscribe to pseudo scientific research to support your religious bias and incorrect belief that science and Islam go well together. How about you actually look at the sources I provided and prove how they are not valid since they come from the scientific community?
No you didn't. You are cherry picking the closest pseudo scientists you think will validate your beliefs. You have no response or rebuttal to the arguments I made which were devoid of religious bias and entirely based on the scientific community.
Fun fact, "Quantum Consciousness:" is regarded as Pseudo science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness#:~:text=While%20many%20attempts%20at%20a,the%20%22binding%20problem%22).
I do not think at this point my opponent do not know what sources means. Sources is not like your paste a URL.
Any reference is a source which can be checked.
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.
Your religious views are not shared by everyone. For example, you believe that Islam is the oldest and one true religion in the world. However, there are much older recorded religions, and the earliest accepted date for the beginning of Islam dates back to the 600s when Muhammad lived. In fact, the Quran didn't exist while Muhammad was alive, which makes Islam younger than religions founded in the BC Era, such as Christianity. Also, your Quran says that Allah made the first man out of clay and dirt. However, biology disagrees because it has been proven that life can only come from other living creatures, and mud and clay are not living organisms and thus incapable of creating life.
The Quran is not a scientific text, so it cannot be used to prove anything scientific. In fact, using the Quran to support a scientific argument is the most unscientific thing you can do.
Quantum Consciousness:
Theories like Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR suggest consciousness might involve quantum processes, hinting at a non-material basis.
It seems you have not read my arguments as well. I have given all scientific information related to dreams, and backed them by mentioning the direct quotes of scientists. But still let me show them again.
You did not give scientific sources. Nor did you give historical evidence. Science doesn't believe in religious theology nor validate it and History and theology are not the same thing. The Quran is not accepted universally as a historical book and hardly any of it can be defended from a scientific point of view.
If you want I can break down your RFD to show why I have problem with some of your points in RFD. you rejected to talk about it before so I did not approach to discuss it with you while I did with savant and it was nice experience.
I'm letting you know that your vote is likely to be removed soon because I've reported several violations. The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally. That's a violation because you cannot give someone the "better argument" vote and then justify it by admitting you didn't review the other arguments. You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false, and that they went unchallenged, which the debate clearly shows otherwise. If you had conducted the vote fairly and simply said you didn't find my arguments convincing and gave clear examples of why, there would be no issues. However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence, which you clearly did not review.
Well I can accept your vote for argument, but what about source?
I have given scientific sources, historical, personal religious, what my opponent did was misquoting which is against credibility of sources. I already said in my debate to vote carefully. I have put a lot of effort in this debate and I have actively participated and read my and my opponents argument repeatedly and I know every single potion of this debate and even sentences. So know where I lack and where is am good. Tbh if you want I can respond to your RFD. I do not consider your RFD vote bomb but I would say it's biased. And I know voting with personal biased is normal in vote but you must have some justification and so not add or remove anything from debate. You must justify with the help of best arguemnt from your side of debator not personal one. At least remove sources point.
Well I can accept your vote for argument, but what about source?
I have given scientific sources, historical, personal religious, what my opponent did was misquoting which is against credibility of sources. I already said in my debate to vote carefully. I have put a lot of effort in this debate and I have actively participated and read my and my opponents argument repeatedly and I know every single potion of this debate and even sentences. So know where I lack and where is am good. Tbh if you want I can respond to your RFD. I do not consider your RFD vote bomb but I would say it's biased. And I know voting with personal biased is normal in vote but you must have some justification and so not add or remove anything from debate. You must justify with the help of best arguemnt from your side of debator not personal one. At least remove sources point.