This debate from 2 vote within then 10 points against me, reached to 3 points against me. It shows I was loosing and I have researched 90000 words on this topic and count my opponent, in first round what is his input and effort. And then in 2nd round most part is my quotes.
And in 3rd part it's almost forfeit by giving just video.
You can see, if a person dedicate himself for some topic and yet I was complaining about lack of space and rounds, then I assume it's his right to become concerned. Right?
In fact I should be even more frustrated, because something happens with me all the time because I am Muslim. I am sure you did not forget the debate which I had with Lancelot. Those in just votes are still there. And in there debate I even had 5 rounds and more efforts.
If this mess is going to happens every single time I debate, should it not be frustrating ?
My opponent is playing emotional blackmailing card here. I would say he is the most frustrated here. When he was winning he was chill. When it becomes tie he become so Kuch disappointed that he is rage quitting. If I had won probably something worst on his part could happen with him.
I have that much of sense, to see am I winning or loosing. Tbh BK out it in great way and even I am astonished how she can interpret my argument and she is very much intelligent.
Thanks to Allah we have people like her active on this website. Shila is another example. So I did not loose complete hope. I hope new debates would not be much troubles. Probably I should debate with people I already know and know their personality, it's more appropriate.
This debate is tie for me so no gain for me at all.
In fact such a mess and drag should let me feel discouraged. But the people I mentioned let have some hope. And I also feel satisfied with moderation of whiteflame. He is not much active, obviously everybody has his or her personal life and getting busy in it is natural, no complain about it.
I did not harass anyone, when a person engaged with someone on some topic and going through some process and sudden mood swing, which your are not aware of even before referring that person, like when I was writing and did not refresh my page I send my reply to AD24, then I stopped after seeing he do not want to engage anymore. if someone accuse you of disrespect harassment and insult, they are very bad traits, they must prove it. He said something to you and you took action without investigating it? Do you think after so much dishonesty on votes, how could I accept it. While savant removed his points on his own, with savant I had private conversation, it was very nice and he is my friend and with lemming I am going to paste it here, if moderator allow, while AD24 must prove where I insulted him and harassed him.
About your decision about lemming vote to not remove, I do not feel comfortable and I also do not agree. He never responded to my arguments of sciences in entire debate but he only responded on my religious explanation, how can he give vote on secondary arguments but not based on primary argument, while adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor. And I did not add any new argument, I gave arguemnt what my opponent demanded from me which was five ke empirical or scientific study which I did.
I would say honesty is best policy .
If accuser can prove their claim and lemming vote remain untouched then I am will leave this website. Because I am not toxic with good people, I have seen swearing and slandering against me and my religion and my Allah and my prophet, no body took any action while I remain complaining about it.
And whiteflame did not help me in votes, both voters took their point back by themselves while the vote casted in my favour is still under ambiguity and weighted against lemming vote. Lemming vote is based on my quran evidence, how could they be just? It's very tiny part of debate.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Last round was not considered by lemming as well from my side and adding new argument is bad practice if instigated intro new arguments no defending. It's inevitable for defender and responder though I extended them from my 2nd round which my opponent neglected even from 2nd round
See the lemming neglected and dropped my 3rd round too.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
What is special in video, just same repetition.
He himself claimed he did not put any rule in debate and whiteflame told me that video could be considered at FF if voter deems it
I transcribed the video from my opponent and responded it in 3rd round, there was nothing new most of repeated arguments.
If you want I can paste here for you to see.
I have responded it and he neglected a lot of things from my 2nd round while I shifted my stances according to my opponent's demand into scientific. I always do that for all debates I always compare spiritual with material. First spiritual then material. My opponent thought I have only 1 argument under my sleeves. But I was going to respond according to science as I know atheist do not believe in spirituality even though the the topic at hand is spirituality yet they even do not begin to talk about it by saying it do not exist and consider themselves true by default. Which my opponent did and I point out this overconfidence which every single atheist show.
Not only they can't see dreams while sleeping it's far beyond but they even can't see even a person is awake. Lol what they do they just construct images or something after mapping stimuli of other people who when watch or see something and their brain shows activity.
And try to ruplicate it
Otherwise seeing dream or thought or vision in mind is equal to seeing consciousness which is impossible.
The hard problem or consciousness has never been solved..
I could not sleep lol
But I will sleep after this comment .
Con
According to Medical news today.com dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's created by our minds while we sleep."
Pro
From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep.
Conclusion:
From both definitions we can see dreams are created by the mind.
Mind:
I have talked about it in my debate.
But here is more insight
From a neuroscience perspective, the mind is often described as the result of neural processes within the brain that give rise to consciousness, cognition, emotions, and behavior. Here are some authoritative references:
1. Kandel, Eric R., et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science.
This book discusses the neural basis of mental functions, such as perception, memory, and decision-making.
Relevant quote: "The mind arises from the activity of the brain, and understanding the brain is essential to understanding the mind."
2. Gazzaniga, Michael S., Ivry, Richard B., & Mangun, George R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
Explores the biological mechanisms underlying mental functions like attention, memory, and reasoning.
Relevant quote: "Cognitive neuroscience bridges the gap between the biological brain and the subjective mind."
3. Damasio, Antonio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.
Focuses on how brain processes produce consciousness and emotions.
Relevant insight: Consciousness is tightly linked to the neural networks responsible for perception and emotion.
Conclusion 2
About consciences and unconscious mind which create dreams has been discussed in great detail in my debate plz look.
Cons claim
That dreams are created by brain cannot be proven by science. Process occur in brain during we sleep do not produce dreams as by definition of con and pro both but mind. I have proven mind is not material but consciousness and dreams occur when brain is unconscious means not mindfull which is even more elevated state of non material existence or something which create dreams.
My definition
You can see involuntarily mind creates dreams in my definition while con relates it to experiment where dreamer responds to question. Which scientific research is valid and how can it be related to this case.
Mind is not physical and produce dreams and even the information I provided above are all related to immaterial abilities whether it's conginition thinking ability or memory. Nothing is material in mind.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, your arguments goes away in forum, I do debating and preaching in discord YouTube and other places like tiktoc and insta and even on Facebook so, my debate are easy and quick reference for future use. They are well organized and easy to navigate that is why I do formal debates. Though I can choose close voting then open voting where I can add sensible and honest people to vote just like I did with Bella. All of them were unbiased people.
Dear, why getting into such a trouble, why something which is always interpreted from bible verses and never mentioned clearly be taken as truth. Bible consisting of old testament and new testament, why God himself not solved the mystery why we need priests and saints to explain for God let alone his existence which is another big challenge we are facing from atheist.
Also, what Islam has given is far more better in fact perfect.
I have debated a lot in 2012 to 2015 with Christians and atheists, though more with atheists less with Christian but last two years I have been debating Christians.
Well it's far more better to considered jesus as prophet then God and in fact trinity, you do not know why trinity was invented to deal with problem or evil, which it failed but greek and Roman or that time were very much convinced of it as they liked complex matter and also gods who were always asking for sacrifice of human could never be better then triune god who sacrificed himself for human. That idea changed those people and little bit solved the problem of evil. Well this topic is so big. I would like if you guys give un biased and just vote for my dream related debate.
Brother, you do not have to say this in Arabic, they are always dishonest people but I know how to get them right. They were always forfeiting against me on DDO, but here I have not done debates with them yet so they are arrogant , savant being arrogant because he won few debates on DDO people with 40 to 50 above won without loss were not daring to debate with me. This debate was instigated by opponent, but I will instigate debates against them on my rules which would not let them exploit their dishonest and biased power to vote being friend with each other.
Also savant I am going to do x-ray of your RFD and lemming's as well because you are being arrogant here.
This was 3 round debate and, I extended my arguments from 1st round and explained them in more detail. There were no new arguments, it was not my headache to leave the 3rd round empty while my opponent just made a fancy video probably no one looked it and thought they should ignore my part as well. I do not know what you are doing. But I can see the credibility.
This debate from 2 vote within then 10 points against me, reached to 3 points against me. It shows I was loosing and I have researched 90000 words on this topic and count my opponent, in first round what is his input and effort. And then in 2nd round most part is my quotes.
And in 3rd part it's almost forfeit by giving just video.
You can see, if a person dedicate himself for some topic and yet I was complaining about lack of space and rounds, then I assume it's his right to become concerned. Right?
In fact I should be even more frustrated, because something happens with me all the time because I am Muslim. I am sure you did not forget the debate which I had with Lancelot. Those in just votes are still there. And in there debate I even had 5 rounds and more efforts.
If this mess is going to happens every single time I debate, should it not be frustrating ?
My opponent is playing emotional blackmailing card here. I would say he is the most frustrated here. When he was winning he was chill. When it becomes tie he become so Kuch disappointed that he is rage quitting. If I had won probably something worst on his part could happen with him.
I have that much of sense, to see am I winning or loosing. Tbh BK out it in great way and even I am astonished how she can interpret my argument and she is very much intelligent.
Thanks to Allah we have people like her active on this website. Shila is another example. So I did not loose complete hope. I hope new debates would not be much troubles. Probably I should debate with people I already know and know their personality, it's more appropriate.
This debate is tie for me so no gain for me at all.
In fact such a mess and drag should let me feel discouraged. But the people I mentioned let have some hope. And I also feel satisfied with moderation of whiteflame. He is not much active, obviously everybody has his or her personal life and getting busy in it is natural, no complain about it.
I did not harass anyone, when a person engaged with someone on some topic and going through some process and sudden mood swing, which your are not aware of even before referring that person, like when I was writing and did not refresh my page I send my reply to AD24, then I stopped after seeing he do not want to engage anymore. if someone accuse you of disrespect harassment and insult, they are very bad traits, they must prove it. He said something to you and you took action without investigating it? Do you think after so much dishonesty on votes, how could I accept it. While savant removed his points on his own, with savant I had private conversation, it was very nice and he is my friend and with lemming I am going to paste it here, if moderator allow, while AD24 must prove where I insulted him and harassed him.
About your decision about lemming vote to not remove, I do not feel comfortable and I also do not agree. He never responded to my arguments of sciences in entire debate but he only responded on my religious explanation, how can he give vote on secondary arguments but not based on primary argument, while adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor. And I did not add any new argument, I gave arguemnt what my opponent demanded from me which was five ke empirical or scientific study which I did.
I would say honesty is best policy .
If accuser can prove their claim and lemming vote remain untouched then I am will leave this website. Because I am not toxic with good people, I have seen swearing and slandering against me and my religion and my Allah and my prophet, no body took any action while I remain complaining about it.
And whiteflame did not help me in votes, both voters took their point back by themselves while the vote casted in my favour is still under ambiguity and weighted against lemming vote. Lemming vote is based on my quran evidence, how could they be just? It's very tiny part of debate.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
Any action against it?
Indeed, thanks
I am sorry I have dragged you into this mess.
Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Last round was not considered by lemming as well from my side and adding new argument is bad practice if instigated intro new arguments no defending. It's inevitable for defender and responder though I extended them from my 2nd round which my opponent neglected even from 2nd round
See the lemming neglected and dropped my 3rd round too.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
What is special in video, just same repetition.
He himself claimed he did not put any rule in debate and whiteflame told me that video could be considered at FF if voter deems it
06:04 Speaker 1
issues and regulating emotions rather than messages from an unverified God.
06:09 Speaker 1
Now, I don't know about you voters, but I think that studies from universities and results found
06:13 Speaker 1
from using EEG and MRI techniques serves as just a little bit more concrete than the Quran
06:19 Speaker 1
when it comes to physical matters such as dream states. Now, I want to address my opponent's
06:23 Speaker 1
misrepresentation of my opponent's views on the subject of dreams and emotions. I would like to
06:24 Speaker 1
ask him to tell us what he thinks about the concept of dreams and emotions.
06:25 Speaker 1
They try to argue that E equals mc squared establishes that matter can be converted into
06:31 Speaker 1
energy. However, this is a falsehood. E equals mc squared does not establish the relationship
06:37 Speaker 1
between matter and energy. It actually establishes the relationship between mass and energy.
06:42 Speaker 1
It also does not demonstrate that demons such as the djinn are real. Everything in thermodynamics
06:48 Speaker 1
is physical, and in order to argue that the concept of demons can be supported by physics,
06:54 Speaker 1
they exist in a physical state. And when it comes to things like gods and demons, these things are
06:59 Speaker 1
not physical for thermodynamics to apply. My opponent also lied in their argument. They
07:04 Speaker 1
claim that I conceded a point, which is not true at all. They claim that since I said that we cannot
07:09 Speaker 1
determine that dreams are divine, I somehow relinquished my ability to refute their claim.
07:14 Speaker 1
However, considering they have shown their willingness to cherry pick and delete my words
07:18 Speaker 1
when trying to offer refutation, this is a false argument. In actuality, saying that we cannot
07:24 Speaker 1
determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession. It's actually consistent with my
07:29 Speaker 1
stance because I am saying that my opponent cannot prove it. Not that we cannot determine it,
07:34 Speaker 1
and therefore it is real. At no point did I ever concede about dreams in the debate.
07:39 Speaker 1
I also never said the pro's argument was perfect in logic. I only stated that even if you make a
07:44 Speaker 1
perfectly logical argument, it is still not the same as being true since truth is not determined
07:49 Speaker 1
by logic. Another point of interest in my opponent's argument is that throughout their argument they've
07:54 Speaker 1
accused me of bias and intellectual dishonesty. However, that is rich coming from my opponent,
07:59 Speaker 1
who has not only argued solely against my argument, but has also argued against my argument.
03:01 Speaker 1
since this will be the last argument I can present. My opponent claimed in rebuttal 3
03:06 Speaker 1
that their evidence is factual and that my refusal to accept non-scientific evidence
03:11 Speaker 1
is a flawed understanding of what constitutes evidence. I find this argument very amusing
03:16 Speaker 1
because the non-scientific evidence that they claim I am refusing to consider
03:21 Speaker 1
is a mix between a personal story on their account and religious bias. I challenge my opponent,
03:26 Speaker 1
however, to show any instance where a personal story is considered factual and valid.
03:30 Speaker 1
Most societies and people take the view that, in order for something to be taken as fact,
03:35 Speaker 1
there must be evidence that goes far past the words that others tell them. Otherwise,
03:39 Speaker 1
people can tell you anything and no one will be able to fact-check the information.
03:43 Speaker 1
Such a mindset is unwise as it leads you to be open to manipulation.
03:47 Speaker 1
So with respect, it is not that I demonstrated a flawed understanding of evidence.
03:52 Speaker 1
Quite the opposite. My standard of evidence is that I need
03:55 Speaker 1
physical evidence before I will consider something to be fact.
03:58 Speaker 1
A story and teachings from a belief system do not meet that standard.
04:02 Speaker 1
Should people be able to be dragged into courts and declared guilty because of other people's hearsay?
04:07 Speaker 1
If the answer is no, then my opponent's argument is dead in the water.
04:11 Speaker 1
In rebuttal 4, my opponent claimed that the debate is between me and them and not a third party.
04:17 Speaker 1
That's a pretty hypocritical statement considering they themselves invite their
04:20 Speaker 1
god to act as a third party in the debate. They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of truth
04:25 Speaker 1
because they argue that just because their argument is logical and reasonable,
04:29 Speaker 1
then it is enough to make it valid.
04:30 Speaker 1
What my opponent does not realize is that being valid isn't the same as truth.
04:35 Speaker 1
You can have perfect logic and what you're saying is still not factual.
04:39 Speaker 1
The reason for that is due to the nature of logic itself.
04:42 Speaker 1
Logic can indeed be a guiding force for reason,
04:45 Speaker 1
but if relied on solely with no empirical basis or framework, it can justify literally anything.
04:50 Speaker 1
For instance, if I told you that animals have bones and that since sharks are a
04:55 Speaker 1
type of animal, they must therefore have bones themselves, you would not be able to argue
04:59 Speaker 1
against it from a logical perspective. However, studying the anatomy of the shark
05:03 Speaker 1
will prove me wrong, despite my perfect logic. I also never called my opponent a liar just
05:09 Speaker 1
because I dismissed their personal experiences. For me to call them a liar, I have to be accusing
05:13 Speaker 1
them of spreading a falsehood intentionally. However, all I have said so far was that we
05:17 Speaker 1
cannot know what actually happened in a personal story and therefore cannot treat it as true since
05:22 Speaker 1
it lacks verification. That is not the same thing.
05:25 Speaker 1
The same thing is calling someone a liar.
05:27 Speaker 1
Okay, now that I have basically addressed my opponent's arguments,
05:30 Speaker 1
I would like to add my own as for why dreams do not have divine meaning.
05:34 Speaker 1
If you remember, my opponent has made many arguments for why they believe dreams can be
05:39 Speaker 1
both meaningless and divinely inspired. One of their arguments was that dreams are ways for
05:43 Speaker 1
either Allah to communicate with you or evil spirits to mess with you. However, scientists
05:48 Speaker 1
have actually discovered a link between dreaming and memories and emotions that do not have a divine
05:54 Speaker 1
Recent studies under the name The Science Behind Dreaming have discovered that while dreams are
05:59 Speaker 1
indeed tied to memories and emotions, it serves primarily to keep people from developing health
00:01 Speaker 1
Hello voters. Due to the long nature of this debate, I decided to make a video dedicated
00:05 Speaker 1
to my arguments on the subject of dreams having divine messages or not. The first thing I would
00:10 Speaker 1
like to address is the pro's false claims of restricting them to a biased perspective.
00:15 Speaker 1
This assertion is untrue, as I have made no rules dictating how they would present their arguments.
00:20 Speaker 1
The only requirement of pro was to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meanings behind
00:24 Speaker 1
them. My position has been based on scientific research that was backed up with sources showing
00:29 Speaker 1
the natural causes of dreams. Pro has responded by arguing that Islam and a personal story were
00:34 Speaker 1
sufficient evidence to establish the divine nature of dreaming. So if anyone is coming from a place
00:39 Speaker 1
of bias, it is my opponent who uses subjective forms of evidence rather than empirical research.
00:45 Speaker 1
The second thing I would like to address is the claim that I never excluded religion,
00:49 Speaker 1
and the implication that I am trying to limit the scope of their argument. While it is true that I
00:53 Speaker 1
never said my opponent could not use religion, I am also not limiting their argument simply because
00:58 Speaker 1
I offer rebuttals to them. I am not limiting their argument simply because I offer rebuttals to
00:59 Speaker 1
arguments based on religion. As a matter of fact, I expected it. However, just because you are
01:03 Speaker 1
allowed to use religion in your argument for divine nature of dreams, it does not mean that
01:08 Speaker 1
I can't point out flaws in doing so. So my opponent is really trying to claim victimhood
01:12 Speaker 1
where none exists. My opponent has also said that science has not studied religion and is not
01:17 Speaker 1
equipped to do so, going so far as to say scientists cannot directly measure or observe
01:22 Speaker 1
their spiritual significance. This is completely true, but not for the reasons they think.
01:26 Speaker 1
The reason science cannot study religion,
01:29 Speaker 1
is because science can only study what can be physically observed. Spirituality does not meet
01:34 Speaker 1
that standard. So it's not that scientists are unequipped, it is because nothing in spirituality
01:39 Speaker 1
can be physically observed to form a theory on them. My opponent's attempt to undermine the
01:43 Speaker 1
capabilities of science really works against their own argument. I will now address their
01:47 Speaker 1
second rebuttal claiming that historically the earliest universities and academic institutions
01:52 Speaker 1
were founded on religious principles. They even go so far as to boldly claim that, even today,
01:57 Speaker 1
religious studies remain a vital academic discipline, with PhD programs and rigorous
02:01 Speaker 1
research dedicated to the field. This entire argument is nothing more than sophistry.
02:06 Speaker 1
While it may be true that early-day academics and university was ruled under theocratic leadership,
02:11 Speaker 1
the actual academics of study were not. For example, even back during the medieval era,
02:16 Speaker 1
no teacher or academic claimed that the reason 2 plus 2 equals 4 is because gods created the
02:21 Speaker 1
universe to work that way. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 no matter what religion you subscribe to,
02:27 Speaker 1
or what religion you are a follower of, or what religion you are a follower of, or do not. It is also
02:28 Speaker 1
why religion and academics do not mix. Religion is supported by beliefs while academics are
02:34 Speaker 1
discovered through rigorous studying and understanding. My opponent also claims that
02:38 Speaker 1
theology is an intellectual pursuit. That claim can be true if one is solely trying to understand
02:43 Speaker 1
the ideologies of the religion in question. However, that is not true when talking about
02:48 Speaker 1
non-theocratic fields. After all, can you remember the last time religion helped you
02:52 Speaker 1
in a biology class, much less came up? Because I certainly do not.
02:56 Speaker 1
I will address two more of my opponent's rebuttals before moving on to my own arguments,
Last 2 min was not transcribed by the software. Could not paste whole so will do in few message
I transcribed the video from my opponent and responded it in 3rd round, there was nothing new most of repeated arguments.
If you want I can paste here for you to see.
I have responded it and he neglected a lot of things from my 2nd round while I shifted my stances according to my opponent's demand into scientific. I always do that for all debates I always compare spiritual with material. First spiritual then material. My opponent thought I have only 1 argument under my sleeves. But I was going to respond according to science as I know atheist do not believe in spirituality even though the the topic at hand is spirituality yet they even do not begin to talk about it by saying it do not exist and consider themselves true by default. Which my opponent did and I point out this overconfidence which every single atheist show.
>Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Vote lemming not savant
You are absolutely right. Thanks for getting into this headache, it was such a drag.
Thank everybody :)
Not only they can't see dreams while sleeping it's far beyond but they even can't see even a person is awake. Lol what they do they just construct images or something after mapping stimuli of other people who when watch or see something and their brain shows activity.
And try to ruplicate it
Otherwise seeing dream or thought or vision in mind is equal to seeing consciousness which is impossible.
The hard problem or consciousness has never been solved..
Your last message was epic for this, nothing more was needed but still I thought I could relate whatever is within debate to solve the problem.
End of discussion.
I could not sleep lol
But I will sleep after this comment .
Con
According to Medical news today.com dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's created by our minds while we sleep."
Pro
From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep.
Conclusion:
From both definitions we can see dreams are created by the mind.
Mind:
I have talked about it in my debate.
But here is more insight
From a neuroscience perspective, the mind is often described as the result of neural processes within the brain that give rise to consciousness, cognition, emotions, and behavior. Here are some authoritative references:
1. Kandel, Eric R., et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science.
This book discusses the neural basis of mental functions, such as perception, memory, and decision-making.
Relevant quote: "The mind arises from the activity of the brain, and understanding the brain is essential to understanding the mind."
2. Gazzaniga, Michael S., Ivry, Richard B., & Mangun, George R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
Explores the biological mechanisms underlying mental functions like attention, memory, and reasoning.
Relevant quote: "Cognitive neuroscience bridges the gap between the biological brain and the subjective mind."
3. Damasio, Antonio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.
Focuses on how brain processes produce consciousness and emotions.
Relevant insight: Consciousness is tightly linked to the neural networks responsible for perception and emotion.
Conclusion 2
About consciences and unconscious mind which create dreams has been discussed in great detail in my debate plz look.
Cons claim
That dreams are created by brain cannot be proven by science. Process occur in brain during we sleep do not produce dreams as by definition of con and pro both but mind. I have proven mind is not material but consciousness and dreams occur when brain is unconscious means not mindfull which is even more elevated state of non material existence or something which create dreams.
My definition
You can see involuntarily mind creates dreams in my definition while con relates it to experiment where dreamer responds to question. Which scientific research is valid and how can it be related to this case.
Mind is not physical and produce dreams and even the information I provided above are all related to immaterial abilities whether it's conginition thinking ability or memory. Nothing is material in mind.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now plz if you can review your RFD and modify it would be great too.
I read fully lemming RFD,... Lol
Ok take your time
Np, there is image somewhere in video double check it for references.
https://youtu.be/Ta7zC8po7Mo?si=XKa9o48h5xrPMvMN
It's more complex then that but I would share my video about how trinity is related to problem of evil.
So how Christian answer the problem of evil?
Thanks a lot. Let's see I have talkee with whiteflame about vote bomb let's see.
Can you vote this debate ? And invite others too?
Still, I will take your suggestion and do forum posts as well. In fact I can discuss this debate in forum to point out how these votes are vote bomb.
Well, your arguments goes away in forum, I do debating and preaching in discord YouTube and other places like tiktoc and insta and even on Facebook so, my debate are easy and quick reference for future use. They are well organized and easy to navigate that is why I do formal debates. Though I can choose close voting then open voting where I can add sensible and honest people to vote just like I did with Bella. All of them were unbiased people.
After the decision of this vote bombing, I will decide to instigate many debates
Dear, why getting into such a trouble, why something which is always interpreted from bible verses and never mentioned clearly be taken as truth. Bible consisting of old testament and new testament, why God himself not solved the mystery why we need priests and saints to explain for God let alone his existence which is another big challenge we are facing from atheist.
Also, what Islam has given is far more better in fact perfect.
I have debated a lot in 2012 to 2015 with Christians and atheists, though more with atheists less with Christian but last two years I have been debating Christians.
Well it's far more better to considered jesus as prophet then God and in fact trinity, you do not know why trinity was invented to deal with problem or evil, which it failed but greek and Roman or that time were very much convinced of it as they liked complex matter and also gods who were always asking for sacrifice of human could never be better then triune god who sacrificed himself for human. That idea changed those people and little bit solved the problem of evil. Well this topic is so big. I would like if you guys give un biased and just vote for my dream related debate.
Brother, you do not have to say this in Arabic, they are always dishonest people but I know how to get them right. They were always forfeiting against me on DDO, but here I have not done debates with them yet so they are arrogant , savant being arrogant because he won few debates on DDO people with 40 to 50 above won without loss were not daring to debate with me. This debate was instigated by opponent, but I will instigate debates against them on my rules which would not let them exploit their dishonest and biased power to vote being friend with each other.
Also savant I am going to do x-ray of your RFD and lemming's as well because you are being arrogant here.
Because, vote bomber atheist never gonna go back on vote bombing. I will cut your feathers.
Any one of you dare to debate me which I will instigate.
This was 3 round debate and, I extended my arguments from 1st round and explained them in more detail. There were no new arguments, it was not my headache to leave the 3rd round empty while my opponent just made a fancy video probably no one looked it and thought they should ignore my part as well. I do not know what you are doing. But I can see the credibility.