God probably does not exist.

I would like to begin by thanking Sargon for his well delivered argument and also show my appreciation for trying to deliver the complexity of his argument in rather simplistic terms. I will now begin trying to rebuttal the arguments put forward by my opponent... To begin with my opponent attacks what he defines as the most classical example of theism, and that is that the universe and/or time has a first state, This form of argument does not apply to my conception of God, and is not applicable to my understanding of God. Of course it would not be acceptable for me just to assert this as my opinion, and I do not suggest you accept it solely on my opinion either.. What I do propose is, that you consider what I am about to present as an acceptable and valid philosophical proposition for the existence of God and his attributes, I do not need to necessarily believe in my proposition, but just show that Pro's argument is incompatible with my conception, and in any case my proposition could still also be correct. I will be arguing for Gods existence from an eastern philosophical viewpoint and will introduce Vedic literature into the argument. The Vedas are arguably the oldest and most complete and compiled philosophical texts on the planet, and is still the oldest living practiced philosophy on the planet. So my conceptions are not entirely mine but are from a very well established authorized and recognized philosophy.... http://www.sacred-texts.com...... Pro argues that there can not be a first state of time or matter for that fact, and I also agree with him, only his definition only strengthens my case for God as the creator, in other words Pro has done all the hard work from a scientific point of view which strengthens my case, I will provide a scriptural texts from the Vedic literature, namely the Bhagavad Gita, I would also encourage the reader to follow the link for the purport to the scripture for a more elaborate explanation as it will take up to much space if I was to copy and paste it. it goes as follows. 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 http://vedabase.net...... Also Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be... Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.12 http://vedabase.net...... Again Please read the purport for a more elaborate explanation. Above I have shown that from a Vedic conception of God and material energy, that both material nature and Living entities, ( Which implies Spiritual nature ) are without beginning and also without an end. which is what I believe Pro is arguing for at least from a materialistic point of view. 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 Great as that only strengthens my claim because it contradicts the rule that every state of time is half-open. Now we have a conception of god with an attribute that cannot be actualized.....Pro Actually you just confirmed my conception of God's attributes and material energy as having no first state... Conclusion for the first part of Pro's argument.... is that Pro's scientific argument only strengthens my case for the existence of God according to Vedic texts, there is no first state of time everything including material energy is without a beginning. But Wait...... I took the debate with the condition that God is the cause of the universe, and indeed I still defend that, God caused the material universe by way of expansion of energy, ( which has always existed ) This energy could have been contained in a singularity or even a black hole, indeed the Vedic literature supports this, by claiming the God creates and annihilates the Material Cosmic Manifestation over and over again and at the time of annihilation he again absorbs the material energy into what I assume to be a singularity. The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end. Bhagavad-gita As It Is 9.8 http://vedabase.net... So here we see that the beginning of every creation is only the end of a previous creation, the material energy exists by way of God's impersonal inferior energy, which is uncaused, God then decides to create the material universe by way of expansion after each and annihilates by way of re-traction. Conclusion....God causes the universe by way of expansion of his inferior impersonal material energy, which is uncased the same as God is uncaused..... I am running out of space to continue as in-depth as I would like and am concerned that I will not be able to cover everything..... But I have a quick proposition for Pro....... If the universe and it's infinitude of complexity with also has the potential for powerful complex minds, such as the human mind,.....If the universe is able to spring into existence or for that matter exist timelessly without a cause, Then why does God who is a powerful intelligent mind with an infinitude of complexity also need to have a cause? I would like Pro to answer this question for me? It seems to me rather unfair that Pro is asking me to accept that a complex universe which has the ability the potential for intelligent minds can exist timelessly or arise without any need for a cause, But that God himself can not also exist as an intelligent mind without any need for a cause. Below I will offer a quote from Steven Hawking's who himself like Einstein was rather confused when it came to acknowledging the existence of God, of course it's evident that Steven publicly confirmed his atheism with the very famous announcement that God is not need to light the blue touch paper because we have a law such as gravity, but this has received heavy criticism from philosophers which we can delve into another time as I do not have much space left... But I will still like to offer this quote from Steven which I suggest undermines his atheism and calls for the existence of God to be necessary. "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" ? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time http://www.goodreads.com... I thank Sargon for instigating the debate, I can only hope I have provided a sufficient enough response to his first argument, I will also ask Sargon to make a concession for my rebuttal in my second round and not following the format and waiting until the third round, the argument I wished to establish would not have sat well and with the argument Pro established without me offering refutations first. Back to you Pro.