Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

You may not like forming an argument, but until you form one, all you have is a handful of premises that have no obvious connection to your conclusion. This is like if you handed me a box of bicycle parts with no blueprints or any explanation of how they fit together and claimed that you had developed the world's best bicycle. It might be the case that the parts can be put together to form the bicycle, but you have not demonstrated that they do. The reason I began by accepting all of your premises was to show that even if they are true, they do not lead to the conclusion that it is possible for a god to have created our reality. I can't even see how your premises could possibly lead to a coherent argument to reach your conclusion. Your conclusion is that a being that can time travel could have created reality in its mind. None of your premises relate to the possibility of time travel or a being that could time travel. None of your premises demonstrate that a mind or a computer can contain individual self aware entities. There is a huge difference between storing date on things that are self aware and things that are not self aware. You will need evidence to support a mind or computer storing the kind of information that can be aware of itself to create the individuals in our universe. Right now all you have is an argument of this form: 1) X 2) Y 3) Z 4) A 5) B Conclusion) C You need to show how your premises relate to your conclusion. Since you did not make an argument, all I could do was see if any of your sources contained an argument that would reach your conclusion that your time traveler god could possibly exist and could create the universe in the way you claim it is possible for it to exist, that is in its mind. Yes, you have many sources, but all that can do for you is demonstrate that it is reasonable to use the claims you make as premises. When I showed that your sources don't even support the claims you make as premises, you made some comment about not being dissuaded when scientists disagree with you. That position is fine, but it doesn't change that the premises I objected to are not supported by the sources you cite. I literally quoted your sources which contradict the claims you make based on the sources. You then ask me to cite a source for my personal observations, that is not something you cite sources for. My experiences are my experiences. You also seem very infatuated with sources. All that sources do for you is show that claims you use in premises are reasonable claims. In the bicycle example, the sources would be verification that these parts are actually used in bicycles, but it does not show that the parts can be put together to form a complete bicycle. I am not sure why you chose to engage in a formal debate if you had no intention of presenting an argument. Now, if I wanted to demonstrate that something is possible, here is how I would do it. Let's take unicorns. 1) It is possible for any animals to develop horns via evolutionary mechanisms 2) Horses exist 3) Horses are animals C) It is possible for horses to develop horns via evolutionary mechanisms. 1) If it is possible for horses to develop horns, then horned horses are possible creatures 2) It is possible for horses to develop horns C2) Horned horses are possible creatures 1) Unicorns are horned horses 2) Horned horses are possible creatures C3) Unicorns are possible creatures. I could cite sources for evolutionary mechanisms, but the point is if all you have are claims and you never linked them in any logical fashion, you will never reach your conclusion. In this example, maybe you could reach the conclusion if all I did was throw out facts, but that is because it is such a simple example. You used complicated scientific claims that have no obvious connection to your conclusion. The onus is on you to make that connection apparent since you are the one making a claim that a thing is possible. I am not going to write your argument for you.