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.
https://www.debateart.com/debates?type=&status=&order_type=comments_number
One of your others is #3, this one is #8, and trailing well back another is #18.
I weighted R3 arguments in my vote. What would you like to debate? Perhaps something to do with the reliability of the Bible (Old or New Testament). Send me a message.
First off, Barney is just like any other user. His votes can be removed if there is a basis for doing so. I'll look over his vote as well.
Second, and I've mentioned this before, the constant haranguing of voters needs to stop. Each of the voters on this debate has been willing to deal with it, but with this many comments aimed at challenging every facet of every vote that has been cast against you, it's bound to have a chilling effect on other voters who might post a vote against you. At this point, you've more than made your case, so please just leave it here or, if you must, keep it to personal contact with either me or the voters if they are willing.
Yes last one has 325 comments, other 140 above, 1 from previous, it was same on DDO my first debate got 50+ only votes and comment were unlimited.
But you lost me.
Probably, among them might be my previous 2 as well right?
I could, but after watching voting system here, I will refrain arguments from 3rd round were excluded by you too right?
This debate has made it into the top ten most commented of all time, and is fast approaching the top five.
On the up side, it finally got a junk debate of mine off the first page of that leaderboard.
Are you willing to debate me?
Or I can go on advance mode where I do not left any chance for other to win and be concise. If I keep debating I would get to that level very quickly as I am rusty.
So let's see how vote bombs are gonna solved on this debate. And now I will try to destroy my opponent in first round instead last because no one read last.
I got 3 votes based on 1 round, how unfair it is.
Whiteflame cannot do anything against Barney.
I do not know who are owner of the site. Before airmax was manager. But now I do not know why and could complain against Barney he messaged my every debate.
In fact they could allow for people to make close group for messaging it was on DDO I have not tried here yet. Like making a thread in which close friends can chat.
I am preacher more then debator, kind of missionary, I ask on different platform to people come read my debates. If they are lost because of garbage votes, then my efforts are in vain and I could not use them to refer anyone.
Whole purpose of debate is lost for me.
You do not know how Allah guide me and how I talk with Allah, I get suggestion from him and feedback as well.
The Daniel dream just come Infront of my by chance on YouTube and I included it in debate.
In fact about these votes Allah told me that he will account people who reject him. On DDO it was same, I was at the level of Ishan then, y devil let me fall in the trap of a girl on DDO. A Muslim girl and long distance relation, I got brain tumor because of that.
And my conginition fall dramatically after that because of a lot of medicine I used and still using. It was prolactinoma, can be cured with medicine.. but mission is still on till my last breath. I could not forfeit Infront of devil. If not this place the mission will go on, on some other places. I debate just in time, I fact as you are my friend, and you are atheist, I could debate with you on mah topics and would not care about votes or could do the debate with close voting where sincere friends can vote on facts and figure and I could ignore random people. And I could do close debating among my friends and with friends voter. What you say about it? Mall want to do debate with me you want to do and one another guy want to do. We can even ask judges to leave votes if we do not want them somehow.
"I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates"
You can also just ignore the votes.
"I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates as well with same structure where people can give opinion as review not vote. Then there will be so many people here"
Thats what I suggested to WyIted. Not sure if he will do it.
Right now, there are debates with judges here, but then debaters must agree on which judges to select, which might be a problem. I do think this site maybe needs some very simple training program for voters as well, or maybe just make it mandatory for voters to include all arguments in a vote so that there are no complains based on some arguments not being considered.
>Vote: CatholicApologetics // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate centers on whether dreams have divine or spiritual significance, with Pro asserting that some dreams are divinely inspired and Con maintaining that dreams are purely physical phenomena. Pro leans heavily on Islamic theology and personal anecdotes to make their case, arguing that the spiritual nature of dreams transcends scientific understanding. Con counters by emphasizing the need for empirical evidence and dismissing religious and anecdotal claims as unverifiable and subjective. A major flaw in Pro’s argument is their reliance on the Quran as a foundational source. Without proving the validity of the Quran as a scholarly or universally accepted authority, their theological arguments lack weight for readers outside that religious framework. Furthermore, Pro's anecdotal evidence, while emotionally compelling, cannot withstand Con’s critique of subjectivity and confirmation bias. Con effectively highlights these weaknesses by pointing to the unverifiable nature of Pro’s claims and questioning the universality of their arguments, particularly when other religions could make similar claims. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Ultimately, Con's approach is more grounded and methodical, relying on empirical evidence and logical coherence. This is why their arguments bear significantly more weight. They successfully dismantle Pro's arguments without relying on equally speculative or unverifiable claims. Con’s ability to focus on the lack of substantive proof in Pro’s case, combined with their demand for a higher standard of evidence, makes their position more persuasive. As a voter prioritizing verifiable and universally applicable arguments, I choose Con.
**************************************************
Well ask whiteflame to modify they way you want.
Or I can do for you, you can find his comment on this debate DM him be will modify it
I'm unable to delete my vote. So far, my vote stands. Feel free to report it. If it get's deleted, I'll revote.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I stopped reading in Round 3. I will read through the third round and revote.
. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Are you serious?
It's better you read 2nd and 3rd round what you saying is false, I did not continue the arguement but I change my stance into scientific.
Have your read 2nd and 3rd round?
What about discord, but arguing there is so hard, because of no formal structure it's more like discussion, you can prove your side and non sense argument keep popping and every single time you have to prove you are smarter then them lol.
I like formal debates because your hard work is saved and if you want to argue with someone new you can present debate here and then can continue. Most of the time when ask people to come here they just run away. Formal debating is very hard for amature but they try to show off on other platform where there is no voting. I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates as well with same structure where people can give opinion as review not vote. Then there will be so many people here.
You can say there are forum for that but it's not one to one and also limited. So structure is needed just like debates here.
Then I want another feature which is also give option of group debate as well where one team can have 3 rounds and then other team can have 3 or one round from the member of one team then other and just like that next from one then other, turn based.
Then I think this website would be even more great.
About votes I think their should tiers for them too. And resting of voters as well, in which if a voter gives splendid RFD and there person also give positive reviews about the voter against whom he did vote.
Also if one person did vote bomb, then his credibility goes down and eventually banned from voting.
And also a feature in which even after voting end a person can review about the output of debate. One feature in DDO I loved wa that people can say they agree before or after with the debator.
"Website made by wyited, she is Christian, it's more hard to deal with them on their platform. They mute or bad to people like us."
I know plenty of sites censor opinions, but from what I know, WyIted believes in free speech. I dont know what his site will be like, but its great to have a back up site in case this one goes away. I personally like this site because it gives room to people to express themselves, and the written notes and debates can be found even years later. Simply, I dont know many other sites which give this much freedom. YouTube, a very popular site, for example, removes comments automatically if its spam filter is triggered. Also, YouTube used to be good for debating, but in last 10 years it slowly got filled with bots who just post comment and never address any replies to it. So I moved from YouTube to here.
Also, and I think you already know this so I don’t know why you’d ask, I can’t remove votes from debates where the voting period has ended.
You know you can just tag me once instead of spamming me with each individual response, right?
I’m not getting to this until later anyway, so if your goal is to alert me to each point one at a time, this isn’t helping. It’s just adding to a growing list of notifications and emails.
Website made by wyited, she is Christian, it's more hard to deal with them on their platform. They mute or bad to people like us.
Tbh I have won all those debates becuse I remove skin from hair, but still I would say I am rusty.
Otherwise I was not letting atheist go till the last round, they were forfeiting way too early.
That is what I was suppose to do with them for next debate but biased vote flish obvious win. It is discouraging, you cannot tell someone why you lost at first look until they read the debate to know it's vote bomb.
I even want vote removed from my previous debate where Bella and Barney vote bomb.
How can you ask so much to BK to watch the video in 3rd round for his vote and you are not asking from Barney and lemming for my 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Why put 5 rounds limit just make only 1 round then..
Vote based on 1 round is not considered vote bomb?
While you were so much pushing BK for hot looking into video arguemnt.
It's double standard.
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
Response:
Hahhahha single dream?
Here is RFD has finished and rest he talked about conduct and sources.
He did not touch 2nd and 3rd round from both side.
What is it whiteflame?
If no body counts 2nd and 3rd round it seems 4th and 5th would have been extra waste. People preasume they are true and keep pretending it.
Always last round is real deal, my strategy is always to summarize and present best arguemnt in last round. Most of time in instigate and there is chance for opponent to respond but this time I had to respond to opponent whatever he enquired. That is why I gave many examples in last round for dreams and many even in first round the dream of Yousef as and Ibrahim as mentioned my opponent could look into it. Because content are not relevant here becuse they are very famous one.
See RFD has ended here.
He only gave decision based on 1st round.
Same goes fro lemming, I will break down lemming as well.
"Best.korea you too?"
You can tag me, but I check these comments anyway because I am curious, and this debate is on top.
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
Response:
That predated dream is mentioned in the Quran as well.
The debate was about dreams not the Quran, as far as logical that divine dreams exist then from where interpretation comes is not much relevant.
About mud example.
I neglected it becaus it's lack of my opponents knowledge, I wish this guy could debate with me on these topics and how ianm going to destroy him.
Well it's about abiogenesis.
Science and quran is on same term.
Clay and human have same elements.
Cannot go any further as was totally irrelevant otherwise could prove it. But space was short for that matter. I deleted a lot of material from each round because or space.
This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Response:
That is my point, dream itself do not determine, but it's interpretation, that is why I said the very premise of this debate is subjective. We are discussing the interpretation of dream not only dream itself.
Who will do interpretation? Well my opponent did not ask it, I do not know why Barney is asking it. And I did not see my opponent making any solid counter to it. It's just obvious that not only you will see dream if Allah wanted to show you something but will guide you to it's interpretation as well. They story of Yousef (PBUH) which I mentioned in debate has answer about it and also mentioned who can do interpretation.
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own.
Response:
He is still in the first round and even not completed it. he is talking I have repeated it many times while in RFD he did two times about my personal example where he misspell anecdotal.
Fun part:
At this point con has hand waved barney's brain to say dreams are shit of mind and do not over focus it just enjoy manipulating it and live your wildest dream by dreaming and you can even have affair with hot aliens 😉
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Response:
Probably Barney drunk?
I have talked in great detail about existence of demon scientifically and even Allah.
Where?
2nd round but Barney just read few lines from 1st round let's see how far he can go.
So let's talk what I said. I said demons are created from fire which originates from matter and energy is released.
Demons are that energy.
(Probably infrared light
And snacks ultra violet )
Bracket are addition.
While Allah is sustainer of everything like a light and energy source for everything as demons are also from matter so they are different then human but their also originates from matter.
About Allah example was given which was metaphor otherwise it's impossible to comprehend infinite being.
But Barney is not only accusing me believing 2 gods which I never said in debate but it's lie.
Only Allah is god one and only.
He is sustainer of everything with his Noor which is his knowledge and ilm.
Thanks 👍
Here we go
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Response:
He might be illuminati because he considers the devil as god.
But
I have stated in my debate that all of them are controlled by Allah one and only. As Allah has written the taqdeer or fate, I have discussed it as well in debate. Demons and humans are his creation and Allah allows them to do what they do and so everything is his will.
He saying how can distinguish between them?
Response:
Answer is go read the debate 😉 especially my dump
He also states how can prove them?
Response:
Again go read the debate 😉
You can tag me anytime. Considering I’m getting a lot of tags from this debate already, you don’t have to do so, as I’m bound to read through all of this anyway, but you can do so anyway.
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
Response:
One says they are chemistry other says it's divine.
Actually it should be,
One says it's chemistry but not divine,
You have not read what other says
Lol 😂😂
As a voter involved going to treat this issue in balance and and say victory goes to most or most likely to con, why would I read the debate what a heck is an moderator no one can revoke my vote and I do not need to read the debate at all
;)
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
Response:
What is it? He will argue but did he not?
Whiteflame can I tag you in the breakdown of barneys' RFD?
Best.korea you too?
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Response:
It's not my fault, I created draft in my mobile but when uploaded in website it just messed it.
This problem I have complaint a lot before thought it's not eating spaces between words but it did between paragraphs.
But I have given up on this long time ago. Which is real problem because it indeed affected my presentation and thus to even people reading it. They are forgetting my points when they end reading my debate but to me it's more likely they do not read more then 1 round.
Obviously you consider my words dump otherwise why would you vote con.
It's something preset
experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Arguemnt:
All evidence is weak or you can say until they are proven to be strong.
During the debate exchange of arguments can change the course of action.
My personal experience was one of the weak evidence among many other strong evidence. I never took my example as my core argument. Though that was to show my opponent that see I have even experience dream which had spiritual meaning.
By the way it's not antidotal it's anecdotal.
But not all dreams anecdotal experiences.
I have argued about it in great depth.
And you have acknowledged it was good point.
Any ways let's move on
I have discussed below phenomenon in my debate.
Look at this, wow.
Although dreams have fascinated us since the dawn of time, their rigorous, scientific study is a recent development[1–4] (Supplementary Fig. 1). In The interpretation of dreams [5] Freud predicted that “Deeper research will one day trace the path further and discover an organic basis for the mental event.” Recent work, which we review in this article, begins to fulfill Freud s prediction.
The study of dreams is a formidable task, because dream consciousness is only accessible via report rather than direct observation (Box 1) and because it is difficult to manipulate dream content experimentally, whether by exposure to stimuli before[6, 7] or during sleep[7, 8]. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the contents of specific dreams[9], and most modern dream research tries to relate neuronal activity retrospectively to dream form rather than dream content, i.e. to focus on properties of all dreams rather than to investigate the neural correlates of a particular dream. Yet, as we shall see, encouraging progress has been made in relating the phenomenology of dreams to underlying brain activity, and to studies of brain damage and development.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2814941/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#SD1
I am doing this for fun. No expectation from them.
Check:
RFD---con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
Response:
There is difference between lucid dreams and regular dreams.
Conclusion:
We are discussing dreams not lucid dreams.
Even we discuss lucid dreams, we already know this category falls in dreams which are controlled by mind.
Extra:
I already acknowledged these types of dreams exist.
But
Can my opponent deny regular dreams?
Solution:
This problem I addressed perfectly by saying 3 types of dreams.
My opponent:
He acknowledged one type which is lucid dreams and he himself distinguished two types, one regular and one manipulative.
I can write 1000000 of words only about this while I deleted many times to make it concise.
But people do not accept detail then concise would be nothing for them.
Biology and stimuli:
Are you suggesting that God will come and say to a person I will come tonight in your dream and say something to you then it would be considered spiritual ?
Lol
God controll human brain and stimulate it to produce dreams if he wants to convey something.
He has made a mechanism, just like a person is free to do a lot of things but sometimes he ended up doing without knowing that he is doing that thing for Allah.
Same goes for dreams, Allah has made them for purpose, and when purpose is not being served it can act wildly.
Presumably not god?
Well even a person is manipulating a dreams still chances is that Allah wants it that way.
By Allah every single action happens when he allows.
I have discussed it in 2nd round in great detail.
Tbh I can talk about it for hours and hours on this point.
I am not going to comment on other votes.
All this fighting in comments happens on every debate site, even on YouTube. Its what comes with debating.
I think the main problem is the win system. I would prefer if popular vote didnt decide who wins a debate.
"I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited."
I dont know if Wyited made the site functional yet. To be clear, Wyited is the one making the site and putting in effort. Its his site. I just named it. He needed a good name for site, and I suggested "DebateWars" as it captures the very essence of what happens in debates.
Look at it lol, Barney doing this shit again.
Hahahhah, man you votem bomb, I am done with this website. Not another debate. You really do not want me on this debate. The error to.be not a able to post argument on DDO let me leave the website. But this website I left because or barney's vote bomb. Clear vote bomb, my 2nd and 3rd arguemnt was completely neglected by Barney and lemming. So sad and disappointed by biased.
I object Barney' vote it's total garbage. Good bye debateart. I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited. I think americandebater24 would be happy and last time this moderator helped his friend as well. If I am going to be proven false because of vote bomb what is purpose to come here and get insulted by dumb votes.
I am done here,
Extreme level of intellectual dishonesty.
Wow man
---RFD---
con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
"experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
---
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.
Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.
Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own. This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."
The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
—-
Concerning allegations of misconduct… I am not spotting anything con is doing to force how pro argues, merely requests to add real warrants to his case in whatever form they take.
I have not reviewed the comment section, but at a breif glance it looks needlessly dramatic (if anyone bugs me I’ll review it, but to keep my head clear and on the main arguments, I’m not prioritizing it).
—-
Sources lean to con, but not by enough. This is in part because I believe in scaling the difficulty (if I gave pro arguments, the better sources from con would easily carry it to his favor; but he’s already getting arguments, so it’s a steeper hill to get a further two points).
—-
Legibility (S&G) is pretty clearly in the tied range. I can give a little advice to pro, but to lose the point someone would have to distract me from the debate with atrocities against the alphabet.
—-
PS: Marvin is clearly a vampire, but I am not finding the evidence convincing that he is also rich (logically valid, but indeed an unsound stereotype).
You can lie if you must, but i never insulted you prior to (admittingly) becoming toxic. You called me lazy and accused me of brining irrelevant topics, to which I told you I didn't want to talk to you anymore due to your rude comments. You yourself became toxic purely by choice. Not by my actions.