God probably does not exist.

Firstly I will begin by thanking Sargon for his participation, I am grateful to be having this debate. It seems to me that Sargon has heavily misunderstood my argument and has therefore misrepresented my case and also I believe he has also misrepresented his own case, as I will also show below..... I will now begin to summarize the debate so far and then offer some closing thoughts. Firstly Sargon begins the second round by accusing me of introducing a new concept of God which does not relate to the definition of God in round 1.. I did no such thing and indeed the God defined in round 1 is compatible with this debate, What is not compatible with my conception of God is Pro's conception of God, Pro claims that God can not be the creator of the universe because there is no first state of time, in other words time was without a beginning, The problem this presents should be obvious to the careful reader. God is defined as having the attribute of causing the first state of time. No such state of time exists. It not only doesn't exist, but it can't exist...Pro So above we see Pro advocates no such thing as a first state of time, he offers an example of an arrow pointing back infinitely and ends at the present, although the present hasn't ended and neither do we have to assume it will. Now here is where Pro's confusion kicks in, In round two, Pro offers a diagram of an arrow that points back only 13.9 billion years, at the most, Pro is suggesting here that there has to be a first state of time, between the now present and 13.9 billion years ago. simply because time can not go infinitely into the past... Although we find here that Again in round two that Pro also proposes an infinite past.... He wee see Pro claim you can never reach the beginning of time... As you go back into time, you never reach T=0, because that would be a mathematically impermissible singularity. Time looks like this instead: t=" 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001", ad infinitum. There is clearly no first state of time . Pro Pro contradicts himself by claiming that as you go back in time you can never reach the beginning therefore it has no first state but then goes on to claim the time indeed had a beginning....it was about 13.9 billion years ago....The problem with this logic is one proposition cancels out the other, Either we accept time goes ad infinitum into the past or we accept time began 13.9 billion years ago....Pro seems to be using faulty logic here. Again Pro states.... In round 2, I presented an argument against there being a first state of time. Every state of time must be represented by an end point with no beginning point,.....Pro Here we can conclude that there is no beginning point to time, Which is exactly compatible with the Vedic scriptural Verse I provided.... Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature. Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.20 Both indicate no beginning point...... Now, Pro asserts that the universe began to exist up to and not exceeding 13.9 billion years ago, I would like to bring to everyone's attention that this is where the confusion is coming from Pro's side....Pro asserts the universe can not be eternal in the past but time can go into the past ad infintum.....This is the difference, The universe began to exist, but time has no first state. ..I do not dispute that the universe was created, I say the universe is created from an expansion of a singularity which is energy that is absorbed or retracted by God and this is confirmed by the purport of the scriptures I provided..... I will copy and paste the purport for further clarity... Both material nature and the living entity are eternal. That is to say that they existed before the creation. The material manifestation is from the energy of the Supreme Lord, and so also are the living entities, but the living entities are of the superior energy. Both the living entities and material nature existed before this cosmos was manifested. Material nature was absorbed in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha-Visnu, and when it was required, it was manifested by the agency of mahat-tattva. Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.20 Purport.... Above we see that material nature was absorbed in God, who is without a beggining....... This perfectly fits Pro's description of reality and of God. A being which is without beginning, just like Pro advocates time is without beginning, but then claims time began with the Big bang and does not go back ad-infintum as Pro originally stated...so Pro is rather confused here and is confusing me also. Now concerning the big bang, Pro offers a quote where an excerpt states.... He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Pro offers no definition of the word Timeless in the above quote so I will offer my own definition... 1 archaic : premature, untimely 2 a : having no beginning or end : eternal b : not restricted to a particular time or date.... http://www.merriam-webster.com......... Here we can define 'Timeless' as an eternal state, which is perfectly compatible with my above description of God and his attributes. In this way we can see that matter can be absorbed into a singularity where things can become timeless and are not restricted by time, in other words it can exist eternally or timelessly, in this state and it is again let loose when the creation begins.... My intention here is to show that the material creation can exist inside a singularity which is not restricted by time but can still begin to exist at a certain point in time...In other words the material can be timeless but the creation can have a starting point, as Pro suggests, around 13.9 billion years ago...... Pro also asserts I dropped arguments for his spontaneous causation argument which represents atheism better, I did no such thing, in-fact I offered a quote from Steven Hawkins which I asserted undermines his atheism even if they reach a unified theory they are still left with the question as to what breathes fire into the equation for a universe to describe, Pro never addressed this point so I suggest it was he who dropped this point and not I. I am again running out of space and am again unable to go in-depth as I would like, But I would like to offer some reputable western cosmologists and scientists opinions who salute Vedic litterature. As opposed to the only the atheist Physicist view. "Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries" " Robert Oppenheimer, Father of Modern Atomic Bomb The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One. " Erwin Schrodinger, Well known Quantum Physicist I go into the Upanishads to ask questions. " Niels Bohr, Well known Quantum Physicist "Vedic Cosmology is the only one in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology." -Carl Sagan http://www.archaeologyonline.net... http://hitxp.wordpress.com... I am now out of characters. I would like to thank Sargon and finish by asking the reader to recognize that the scientific arguments Pro presented are very compatible with the Vedic conception of God. Thus God more than likely exists Thank you.