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.
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.
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
Islamic information was only responding about 3 types of dreams while my main arguments were scientific and you are framing me again here being religious and undermining it's false without proof.
You did very less in debate, most of your debate was quotes from me and little response for them.
They overlooked my whole debate and solid arguments. All dreams being physical and their interpretation could be spiritual was my argument.
I have proven it how science do not know about consciousness, let alone unconscious mind which govern dreams.
So disappointed
Nope because, they are atheists not because you made solid arguements.
What they are claiming in RFDs I have dealt with it already and in great detail. I have talked in scientific prospect as well. But they only read half part of debate and gave decision..
If we know how flowers bloom, does it means God do not exist? Knowing the mechanism of something do not negate God .
For that see my video how atheism got into us.
Knowledge is not negation of God but proof of God. Christian apologist gave to he vibe and sentiment of science the opposition of theism. While science compliment Islam.
I should have been concise so that they cannot overlook my main arguments while I try to give as much info as I can. But tbh both votes are personal bias
Plz, man it's so bad, it's definition of firm believe not faith.
And paraphrasing is not allowed for definition from dictionary. That is why we use reputable dictionary not personal one.
And I am not debating firm believe but spirituality and religion. And you responded, shall I go in detail and show why your vote is vote bomb.
There is difference between firm believe and believe. Also here it's not about faith but a personal believe on so personal matter not religion .
The ultimate problem with relying on faith is that anything can be claimed, argued, and said without being able to confirm it. This is because faith is defined as believing without knowing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Can you show me where it says in link?
You gave him for source while misqouting source cause the loss of source point.
Guys
Can you see, that is why theism is just personal bias and falsehood of scientists who develop their career on their personal theories which are declared false later on.
If proven to be true then they get the idea from religion.
Another vote bomb based on my only first round. No counter arguments read and considered from savant.
Atheist should not be immune, do not repeat DDO's mistakes.
Plz red 2nd and 3rd round as well. First round was was kind of introduction, for the sake of just and honest opinion.
Your vote is also vote bomb. Bro I changed my stance in 2nd and 3rd round. Come on do not be biased.
Why the fck I debate if u guys do not read it full.
Let me take only this statement from you.
/6
Undermining the Use of Religious Evidence
Is 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.
This shows you have not read my debate.
You are saying just like my opponent, more clear to say, you are trying to debate to debate with me here and imposing your personal believe. Any debate is not about changing someone's personal believe. We only see evidence, no matter the source of arguemnt come from.
You cannot discard my religious argument because its religious.
First let me tell you why.
First this topic is about spiritual or divine meaning attached to dreams so it's inevitable to talk about religion as the topic at hand is religion that is why I took this debate. I do not know why sometimes people are so dumb.
2nd
It does not matter is argument come from religion or something else you cannot discard right away without analysing it, if it's logical Nd make sense and is strong argument then you have to see the strength and relevance of the arguement not your personal biased judgement to discard it right away because you are atheist, both my opponent and you did it right away.
3rd.
When I stated the religion or used religious information it was relevent to the arguement where my opponent mentioned about forgetting of dreams. So I gave religious information about that not 100% dreams are considered spiritual or divine.
But there are some, it is common with all religions.
So it was information regarding that point.
I went in Great length to respond scientifically against my opponent. I am sure you did not read final argument.
Debating with me is not hard in fact voting is even more harder. Because my debates are very long.
This shows your personal bias. And argument of religion was nothing but you explain types of dreams and not completely for main argument.
Also my opponents's arguemnt was I do not believe dreams have spiritual meaning because I do not believe spirituality.
And your vote says same.
Are your children guys?
Lol
If I argue with your RFD, I can prove your vote bomb. Keep in mind I have done this on DDO, once I voted against naqash matwadi who was
an atheist and I was 1 voter and I gave all 7 points to he Muslim guy and 6 votes were in favour or naqash. So jury sit on my vote and I proven to naqash that my vote was not vote bomb by debating with him in comment section which was like whole another debate. So I left voting on DDO because of that headache. And my first debate, there were about near 50 votes on it and all great debators who never lost even one debate, voted in my favour. That was enough for me to be right. But so many vote bomb I could not do anything then. But then I come to know that I can appeal for it. I am getting a lot of vote bomb or biased votes for my debates. I put a lot of efforts for this debate.
But you did not read my arguments which is very sad to see. You gave him for resources while he mis quote all resources and presented wrong information from the definitions. I am sure you never checked them. You did not read my arguments at all. Do you what me to prove your vote bomb against me? And you are biased here?
I already told in last round that voting on my debate is not easy I do not let it go. You should have been careful. Even on my other debates the moderator himself vote bomb. If this keep going then this website will end up LIKE DDO
I consider this vote bomb, I want the voter to give concise RFD not another debate in which he present bible verses and argument. He should not forget he is voter and whatever is in debate, should be voted for that.
Are you debating with me?
Give a concise RFD, and do not impose your belief on me. I do not know why you gave vote to my opponent. I do not know why I have to debate separately with voters all the 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.
What is the purpose of so many rounds if people are not going to read more then 1 round.
Hahaha, voting for forfeited debate, what a gift. Go vote for dream debate then I would say you have done something against atheist vote bomber.
Do you find science in last comment?
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.
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
Islamic information was only responding about 3 types of dreams while my main arguments were scientific and you are framing me again here being religious and undermining it's false without proof.
You did very less in debate, most of your debate was quotes from me and little response for them.
They overlooked my whole debate and solid arguments. All dreams being physical and their interpretation could be spiritual was my argument.
I have proven it how science do not know about consciousness, let alone unconscious mind which govern dreams.
So disappointed
Nope because, they are atheists not because you made solid arguements.
What they are claiming in RFDs I have dealt with it already and in great detail. I have talked in scientific prospect as well. But they only read half part of debate and gave decision..
If we know how flowers bloom, does it means God do not exist? Knowing the mechanism of something do not negate God .
For that see my video how atheism got into us.
Knowledge is not negation of God but proof of God. Christian apologist gave to he vibe and sentiment of science the opposition of theism. While science compliment Islam.
I should have been concise so that they cannot overlook my main arguments while I try to give as much info as I can. But tbh both votes are personal bias
I will make YouTube video about this debate show how biased people are when they are atheists in debates.
Plz, man it's so bad, it's definition of firm believe not faith.
And paraphrasing is not allowed for definition from dictionary. That is why we use reputable dictionary not personal one.
And I am not debating firm believe but spirituality and religion. And you responded, shall I go in detail and show why your vote is vote bomb.
There is difference between firm believe and believe. Also here it's not about faith but a personal believe on so personal matter not religion .
The ultimate problem with relying on faith is that anything can be claimed, argued, and said without being able to confirm it. This is because faith is defined as believing without knowing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Can you show me where it says in link?
You gave him for source while misqouting source cause the loss of source point.
Guys
Can you see, that is why theism is just personal bias and falsehood of scientists who develop their career on their personal theories which are declared false later on.
If proven to be true then they get the idea from religion.
Shame
You can't debate me at all. A person who needs 100000 words for RFD and personal arguments can't debate me.
I won't let it go this time.
It's complete joke tbh
Another vote bomb based on my only first round. No counter arguments read and considered from savant.
Atheist should not be immune, do not repeat DDO's mistakes.
Plz red 2nd and 3rd round as well. First round was was kind of introduction, for the sake of just and honest opinion.
Your vote is also vote bomb. Bro I changed my stance in 2nd and 3rd round. Come on do not be biased.
Why the fck I debate if u guys do not read it full.
Dream is not bout dreams and it's cause but the interpretation of dreams which do not involve science read full debate.
Let me take only this statement from you.
/6
Undermining the Use of Religious Evidence
Is 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.
This shows you have not read my debate.
You are saying just like my opponent, more clear to say, you are trying to debate to debate with me here and imposing your personal believe. Any debate is not about changing someone's personal believe. We only see evidence, no matter the source of arguemnt come from.
You cannot discard my religious argument because its religious.
First let me tell you why.
First this topic is about spiritual or divine meaning attached to dreams so it's inevitable to talk about religion as the topic at hand is religion that is why I took this debate. I do not know why sometimes people are so dumb.
2nd
It does not matter is argument come from religion or something else you cannot discard right away without analysing it, if it's logical Nd make sense and is strong argument then you have to see the strength and relevance of the arguement not your personal biased judgement to discard it right away because you are atheist, both my opponent and you did it right away.
3rd.
When I stated the religion or used religious information it was relevent to the arguement where my opponent mentioned about forgetting of dreams. So I gave religious information about that not 100% dreams are considered spiritual or divine.
But there are some, it is common with all religions.
So it was information regarding that point.
I went in Great length to respond scientifically against my opponent. I am sure you did not read final argument.
Debating with me is not hard in fact voting is even more harder. Because my debates are very long.
This shows your personal bias. And argument of religion was nothing but you explain types of dreams and not completely for main argument.
Also my opponents's arguemnt was I do not believe dreams have spiritual meaning because I do not believe spirituality.
And your vote says same.
Are your children guys?
Lol
If I argue with your RFD, I can prove your vote bomb. Keep in mind I have done this on DDO, once I voted against naqash matwadi who was
an atheist and I was 1 voter and I gave all 7 points to he Muslim guy and 6 votes were in favour or naqash. So jury sit on my vote and I proven to naqash that my vote was not vote bomb by debating with him in comment section which was like whole another debate. So I left voting on DDO because of that headache. And my first debate, there were about near 50 votes on it and all great debators who never lost even one debate, voted in my favour. That was enough for me to be right. But so many vote bomb I could not do anything then. But then I come to know that I can appeal for it. I am getting a lot of vote bomb or biased votes for my debates. I put a lot of efforts for this debate.
But you did not read my arguments which is very sad to see. You gave him for resources while he mis quote all resources and presented wrong information from the definitions. I am sure you never checked them. You did not read my arguments at all. Do you what me to prove your vote bomb against me? And you are biased here?
I have read it, it's personal bias, he is arguing with me on his own arguments not what debator has done with me.
I already told in last round that voting on my debate is not easy I do not let it go. You should have been careful. Even on my other debates the moderator himself vote bomb. If this keep going then this website will end up LIKE DDO
This has reached the quality of votes on this website, I have to debate with voter now.
I consider this vote bomb, I want the voter to give concise RFD not another debate in which he present bible verses and argument. He should not forget he is voter and whatever is in debate, should be voted for that.
Are you debating with me?
Give a concise RFD, and do not impose your belief on me. I do not know why you gave vote to my opponent. I do not know why I have to debate separately with voters all the time.
No one votes?