Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent will take the Pro position that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Burden of proof is on Pro, my opponent. Since burden of proof is on Pro, I will make no argument for the first round, feel free to make an argument on the first round.
My opponent didn't give any definitions, so I'll define them.
1. Muhammad: (Arabic: محمدR06;R06;)is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder by non-Muslims. He is known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet", almost all of whom consider him to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.
2. Winged horse:
Al-Burāq (Arabic: البُراقR06;R06; ) is a steed in Islamic mythology, a creature from the heavens that transported the prophets. Most notably Buraq carried the Islamic prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey", as recounted in hadith literature.
In my argument, I'll just show a Hadith, saying, of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
Narrated Abbas bin Malik: Malik bin Sasaa said that Allah's Apostle described to them his Night Journey saying, "While I was lying in Al-Hatim or Al-Hijr, suddenly someone came to me and cut my body open from here to here." I asked Al-Jarud who was by my side, "What does he mean?" He said, "It means from his throat to his pubic area," or said, "From the top of the chest." The Prophet further said, "He then took out my heart. Then a gold tray of Belief was brought to me and my heart was washed and was filled (with Belief) and then returned to its original place. Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me." (On this Al-Jarud asked, "Was it the Buraq, O Abu Hamza?" I (i.e. Anas) replied in the affirmative). The Prophet said, "The animal's step (was so wide that it) reached the farthest point within the reach of the animal's sight. I was carried on it, and Gabriel set out with me till we reached the nearest heaven." - Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.227
I. Dismissal of my opponent's round one argument.
II. Proving improbability of flying to heaven on a winged horse.
A. Theory of gravity
B. Creatures and machines that can fly versus a horse
C. Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection make a winged horse improbable
D. No evidence of Heaven
I. My opponent has relied solely upon religious doctrine to make her argument. This is not evidence nor is this a credible source of information. Therefore, I motion that my opponent's round 1 argument be dismissed.
II. I will now make my counter argument. I cannot prove a negative, but I can prove that flying to heaven on a winged horse is extremely improbable. I will do so with evidence and science.
A. Theory of gravity
First and foremost is that the theory and law of gravity is widely accepted.  The Earth orbits the sun. . In order to fly one must overcome the gravitational force known as gravity. That's why some animals can fly and others cannot. All known horses cannot fly without assistance of some kind. A horse can ride in an airplane, and would then be flying. Yet, there is no evidence that the winged horse in my opponent's round one argument used an airplane. Furthermore, the first airplane was developed by the Wright brothers. . Which is 1903. In comparison Muhammad was born in 570.  To conclude this section, Muhammad could not have rode on a horse inside of an airplane, since the airplane was developed over 1,000 years after Muhammad's birth.
B. Creatures and machines that can fly versus a horse
Building on part A that only some creatures can over come gravity, here is a list of creatures and machines that can fly. Planes, helicopters, drones, birds, and insects. Note, none of these are horses nor resemble a horse. In fact, the only mammal that can fly is a bat. . Since horses are mammals , and the only mammal that can fly is a bat, which is nothing like a horse, I conclude that a horse cannot fly without assistance.
C. Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection make a winged horse extremely improbable
Even if somehow a winged horse did evolve via genetic mutation, it would most likely become extinct. Such a mutation would most likely decrease the chances of such a horse surviving in the wild and reproducing. .
D. No evidence of Heaven
Let's assume for a moment that winged horses do exist and can fly. How far would the horse have to fly? Where is Heaven? The Earth's atmosphere is divided into layers. . These layers are called troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere. Surely, the Islamic prophet would weigh some weight. How far would this horse have to carry its passenger? As the atmosphere grows thinner so does the oxygen. How would the two even breathe? No, this scenario is extremely improbable.
Yet, a larger mystery remains. Where is heaven? We now have sophisticated technology to travel to the moon and beyond. The chances of the human race simply overlooking heaven are low. The chances of heaven, the destination of the Islamic prophet existing is very low.
The only logical conclusion that can be made is that it is extremely improbable for Muhammad to fly to heaven via a winged horse. Since the Pro side of the debate has thus far failed to provide evidence of any kind one can only side with Con, that Muhammad did not fly to heaven. Thank you for your time.
My opponent didn't tell us in the topic or in the first round that this is a scientific debate!!
Worthy voters, my opponent's argument is dismissed, as it is OUT OF TOPIC.
" This is not evidence nor is this a credible source of information."
This is a religious debate about Islam. Do you want me to quote from the Bible??!!!
ALL OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS OUT OF TOPIC, AND SO I REQUEST VOTERS TO CONSIDER THAT.
Second, my opponent does not understand the distinction between types of evidence. In my round two argument I used a combination of both scientific and non-scientific evidence.
Definition of evidence "a thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis." 
As you can see the first example is generic evidence, the broken window. The second example is scientific evidence. To understand the difference you need a basic understanding of the scientific method.
"Peer-review and professional consensus
This step is the most crucial, and it turns research into the "evidence" that we all talk about. The researcher has to present their data, results and conclusions in the form of a scientific report or paper. This must be reviewed by their scientific peers " only they are qualified to assess the validity of the methods and the accuracy of the conclusions the researcher has drawn from the results.
In summary, the scientific method is a robust method to ensure accuracy. To be scientific evidence, the data must go through an intense process that greatly improves reliability over generic evidence.
As for being off-topic, no I reaffirm that I am on topic. If the resolution was, "Islamic religious doctrine states the prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse" my opponent would be correct. This is not the topic though, instead the topic is " the Islamic prophet fly to heaven on a winged horse." This allows both sides to use sources and evidence scientific and non-scientific from sources other than Islamic religious texts.
Even if you consider religious texts as evidence, just about every other religion contradicts each other. Let alone the contradictions within the Koran itself.
""Those who believe [in the Qur.an], and those who follow the
Jewish [Scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any one
who believe in God and the last day, and work righteousness
shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no
fear, nor shall they grieve." (Sura 2:62).
Now, read a counter "revelation" in Sura Imran:
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam [Submission to
God] he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual
good" (Sura 3:85)"
You can't seriously consider the Koran as evidence when it contradicts itself. Again, I reaffirm my position that my opponent has no evidence and I have evidence. My evidence is on topic and thus admissible. Evidence against no evidence is clear, vote Con.
" I contend that my arguments are on topic. First, where religion ends and science begins is a gray area because both claim some of the same territory. "
Sorry. I'm not saying that there isn't any relationship between science and religion. I'm saying you started a debate, put it in category 'Religion' and then you want me to use science? You should have told us in the topic or at least in the first round that this is a scientific debate.
" Therefore, the topic of "how old is the Earth?" could fit into either religion, or science, or both categories."
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. That's why you should have told us what you want to debate. You put it in category 'Religion'.
As for being off-topic, no I reaffirm that I am on topic. If the resolution was, "Islamic religious doctrine states the prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse" my opponent would be correct. This is not the topic though, instead the topic is " the Islamic prophet fly to heaven on a winged horse." This allows both sides to use sources and evidence scientific and non-scientific from sources other than Islamic religious texts. "
GREAT! VOTERS, CHECK THIS OUT! My opponent uses the phrase 'other than', not 'instead of' . That means I can also use religious texts. CONTRADICTION! My worthy opponent previously said:" I. My opponent has relied solely upon religious doctrine to make her argument. This is not evidence nor is this a credible source of information. Therefore, I motion that my opponent's round 1 argument be dismissed."
So once he says that I can't use religious texts. Then CONTRADICTS himself by saying that you can also use religion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: On arguments pro offered a witness account, but the information was too unclear to make a clear few on (seemed to imply multiple heavens, so really a debate could be held on what that one part meant). Con offered such things as the theory of gravity, and the lack of any suggestion winged horses exist, which unless that witness were to be bolstered up pretty damn well trumps him. It's a pretty clear win until either winged horses are implied to exist ... Considering pro's R2 claim about con being off topic and the debate being categorized religion, I will not dismiss his arguments (they could have been challenged, they could have been outweighed by evidence, con has the duty to cast doubt by any means), however I will subtract a conduct point as the trap was not only very blatant, but it was identified making it a point of consideration (another voter might take it so far as to dismiss arguments, I do not see it as that bad, even if still poor sportsmanship).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.