Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Thanks for the debate Pro.Congratulations to anyone who actually read this entire debate.The vote on this debate is clear in my opinion, and here's why:*Creation*There were no definitions for the action that creators necessarily commit other than the one that I provided earlier in the debate.Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro never contested this definition, and Pro's burden was to show, by the debate's definition, a personal cause who is the creator of the universe.A voter then, must accept my definition of creation and *this* definition should be considered when determining if there can be creation without time, when there was no universe, which Pro agrees was a singularity with an origin.Pro also only bothered to attack cause and effect, by arguing simultaneity, and Pro left creation alone.By Pro's neglect of and inadequate response to my point on creation, one must conclude that creation is in fact temporal (time-based) and that Pro is necessarily saying that this time based process occurred when there was no time.No universe, no time, no creation, no creator, no god, and science justifies a belief in time being a property of the universe, not a means to bring the universe about.*Spaceless and Timeless*Pro managed to get an e-mail from Itzhak Bars, and if this is for real, I gotta give mad props to Pro for going that deep for a debate...nice work.However, I'm afraid that Itzhak Bars's e-mail necessarily negates Pro's god's spaceless and timeless property required by Pro's own definition of god."The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions..." -Itzhak BarsIf Pro is saying that the mind, Pro's god, exists in these extra space and time dimensions demanded by the 2T framework, then Pro necessarily admits that the mind, his god, is not spaceless or timeless; Pro is claiming that his god exists in some space and some time dimension which, by definition, is not spaceless or timeless.Thanks Itzhak.*Final Responses*Pro claims:"Here is why I won this debate. Whether Con accepts it or not, I provided evidence for a second space-time dimension."My response:Well, you didn't, you provided an e-mail from Itzhak Bars who said "The 2T-framework is still under development...I refrain from speculation any further...A lot more work awaits to be done in this direction to reveal the hidden dimensions in various 1T systems, including in the field theory formalism."But let's just say that you did prove the 2nd time dimension, and that the mind, your god is there.Well, then your god isn't timeless or spaceless; it's just in a different space/time dimension.People should just vote right there.Pro continues:"I was able to show how the mind not only exist in a different dimension but does have some causal influence that is independent from the brain."My response:Along with not showing the mind to be separate from the brain, Pro agreed with me that the mind is contingent on the brain.Minds are contingent on the brain or other neuronal substrates, and Pro did nothing to show otherwise.But if Pro did show that the mind was in a different dimension, did Pro show that this dimension was spaceless or timeless?No.Pro quoted physicists who call it another time dimension which is not timeless.Pro, you're in a double bind here.Pro adds:"Since I provided existing evidence of causes, such as us, that can create matter/energy without being made up of matter and energy, his entire case is essentially refuted."My response:Who of us is not made up of matter and energy?You just said causes such as us without being made of matter and energy.We're completely made of matter and energy!Also causes are not creations, check the uncontested definitions for creation in this here debate.*Conclusion*Pro never addressed temporal creation, and asserted cause and effect irrelevance.Pro never addressed god being able to create a universe without evil or his neglect to do so.Pro never addressed how the mind exists in another spacetime dimension yet remains spaceless or timeless.This debate was long and frustrating, because I had to walk the fine line of critiquing Pro's obvious misinterpretations of scientific work and refuting the central resolution without excessively covering my bases and turning this into a scientific research flex off.To be honest, I'm not convinced by Pro's attempt to explain god into existence by stretching science's understanding to retrofit a creator.Science indicates the universe originated at spacetime's origination; spacetime did not precede our universe, and Pro's sources agree.