Muhammad Ibn Abdullah was one of the prophets of God

INTRODUCTIONPro has failed to provide any proof for Mohammad's prophecy, but instead persisted on using his logically fallacious argument while refusing to use academic sources to describe Mohammad's life and personal traits.His narrative of Mohammad relies on a book called "Life of Mohammad" which is neither peer-reviewed nor academic, but written by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, who does not have any accredited scholarship in Islamic History or Religious Studies, but relies on his position as the son of the "Ahmadiyah prophet"[1].REBUTTALLiar, Deluded or the Prophet of God?Pro requests, "I would simply ask Con if he sees any other possibilities, to please bring them forward, otherwise, the three that I have mentioned seem sound and straightforward."Response: [From my previous round]. "Mohammad could be partially legendary, as in someone who has many false stories about his prophecy although he existed as a historic figure with a different prophecy."Pro claims, "A person cannot be both deluded, and lie. This is a logical infallacy[sic]. A person who lies knows what the truth is, but purposely refrains from publicizing it. A person who is deluded believes with strong conviction that what they propose is valid and not invalid."Rebuttal: It is an unrealistic assumption that people are always either completely deluded or lying about a particular matter. Pro commits here a False Dilemma logical fallacy (also known as Black and White thinking). According to psychological research, we have many cases of pathological liars believing some of their lies eventually to the degree that their lies turn into delusions, although a pathological liar would have other lies that don't reach the "delusion stage" [2]. Moreover, someone with persecutory schizophrenia might have a delusion which he supports with intentional lies to make it more convincing to others. I don't see why this is impossible. For instance, someone might believe that he is being followed by clowns that are trying to kidnap him to steal his kidneys. In order to make his delusion more convincing to others, it is possible for that person to use intentional lies to provide supporting evidence... such as that he once disguised himself as a clown and accessed a special operations' room that was located beneath a circus. Pro has to show that this is impossible.In conclusion, Pro's first premise is a False Trilemma which is a caricature of reality as opposed to an accurate, scientific classification. Moreover, his other premises have NOT been supported so far and established as historic facts to be used as factual premises.Sleep paralysisPro conceded that Mohammad had Sleep Paralysis but claimed that it also had a supernatural factor without providing any empirical evidence for the role of God or Angels in such event. I see no reason, therefore, to accept that an Angel caused this or was involved in this. Pro explains, "But what I want to clarify is that if we accept the fact that God revealed to Muhammad (saw), there will obviously be a natural explanation as well, if you read my previous refutations regarding Con's premises. The same chemicals that are released in sleep paralysis victims could have been used by God as well. And it is not only sleep paralysis, but God can reveal Himself to people in dreams as well. And we all know what dreams are, dreams also have natural explanations. But because it has a natural explanation does NOT invalidate the fact that there could be a supernatural cause behind it."Rebuttal: Pro concedes that Mohammad's revelation in the cave can be explained using Sleep Paralysis and dreams, so I don't see why he assumes there is a supernatural cause behind it. My alternative never sought to "invalidate" his explanation in any way, but simply to undermine it as I meticulously explained: If we can explain phenomena without Angels and Gods, why shouldn't we? Why should we assume God is behind it? If I throw a rock and it falls because of gravity, does it make sense for me to assume that it also fell because an Angel used his hand to push it to the ground?Pro asks, "Let it be known, the revelations of Muhammad (saw) have continued for 22.5 years, until his demise, was he going through sleep paralysis during this whole time?"Rebuttal: Sleep paralysis has two major classifications: Isolated Sleep Paralysis (ISP) and Recurrent Isolated Sleep Paralysis (RISP). Patients with RISP have recurrent and multiple experiences of sleep paralysis that occur on a regular basis that usually extend from a patient's childhood till his very death[3]. To stay on the safe side, I said in my previous round that Mohammad's prophecy can be attributed to three things: (1) recurrent sleep paralysis, (2) temporal lobe epilepsy and (3) Mohammad faking revelations for his own interests. In summary, Pro falsely assumed that all cases of sleep paralysis are ISP when many of them are recurrent(RISP). Moreover, he failed to provide any proof for his empirical claims such as that an Angel sent by God revealed such revelations through naturalistic measures. On the traits of MohammadI have not yet received any academic sources supporting Mohammad's personal traits such as honesty and what have you, but citations from Islamic websites and non-academic books. Nonetheless, even if we accept those for the sake of argumentation, they are not proof that Mohammad is the prophet of God, but evidence that Mohammad had traits that are expected of a Prophet. This debate is not on whether Mohammad had the traits of a Prophet, but whether he actually was a Prophet .Epistemological Argument from Naturalistic ExplanationsThis argument only works on supernatural explanations. Pro explained that he believes God works in naturalistic ways(which is a very interesting notion), which means that this argument is inherently incompatible.Best Explanation Model ArgumentNevertheless, it can be argued that my naturalistic explanation is better than Pro's based on an empirical basis.P1- A better explanation for a certain phenomenon makes the least unsupported assumptions to explain a particular phenomenom.P2- My explanation of Mohammad's prophecy does not involve natural laws we don't a know or the existence of God and angels. Whereas, Pro's explanation does to a great degree.Conclusion: My explanation of Mohammad's prophecy is a better explanation than Pro's.It is important to note that my naturalistic explanation is not there to "invalidate" Pro's but simply to provide a better alternative, and this has been achieved given that Pro has failed to support his naturalistic explanation with empirical evidence but relied on what seems to be unknown laws and mysteries.CITATIONS[1] Friedmann, Yohanan (2003). Prophecy Continuous: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background. Oxford University Press. p. 21.[2] "Pathological lying, accusation, and swindling." W Healy, MT Healy - Criminal Science Monographs - JSTOR.[3] Terrillon, J.; Marques-Bonham, S. (2001). "Does Recurrent Isolated Sleep Paralysis Involve More Than Cognitive Neurosciences?". Journal of Scientific Exploration 15: 97–123.