The existence of a god is a logical certainty

Won't it be nice when we can simply transcribe our thoughts into written essays? Forget the hours taken of writing, forget the messy typos. Some day soon.... Anyways, time to examine each attack my opponent has made. Premise one: Time. My opponent states that time must have had a beginning and before time nothing else could have existed. What my opponent perhaps doesn't realize is the fact that time in itself does not exist. Time is in effect an idea created by man in order to measure the duration of our life. Furthermore to expound a bit on time. Even if my opponent could somehow prove the existence of time he would not be able to prove that it flows, or even moves. This of course stems from the fact that my opponent would be completely unable to prove that he has existed apart from NOW. And even at that my opponent has no way to prove to me that he exists. Which brings me back to the main premise. Time, being a human idea does not necessarily exist and therefor never necessarily had a beginning. Thereby it is entirely possible that everything is already occurring outside of the human idea of time. Premise 2: No, not necessarily. There have been various theories on how exactly the universe could have logically created itself. Many such theories stem around the idea that the universe is slowly moving outward from one focal point. Status quo however we have not located that point or been able to travel there, which of course means that we do not entirely know. This however does not mean that we should just assume something completely illogical, the idea of anything transcending the laws of physics would of course be deemed illogical. Which brings me to my turn, if we are to accept that a being of great power somehow managed to transcend the laws of physics we are to accept an illogical occurrence which directly contradicts my opponents entire case. Premise 5: While doing minor amounts of research for this I entertainingly enough ran across matter antimatter annihilation a phenomenon that doesn't appear to stay true to the laws of matter conservation. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus my point is simple. There is a great deal that we have not yet discovered about this world or even know about. Stating that I do not know the answer is perfectly reasonable. However to assume that a being that transcends the current laws somehow exists is completely illogical. Premise 7-9: Actually no, it is just as possible that our entire lives are completely determined by everything that happens. In other words it is just as possible that we are simply robots that process information. Or that I am simply a robot processing information. Your idea that I must exist only works under a duality, which may not necessarily be true. Premise 11: It is possible that the universe exists but that doesn't mean we see any part of it. For instance the universe could be A, but because of my viewpoint I see it as C instead. Furthermore even if I was viewing the universe as is then I am not necessarily viewing all of the universe. Thus I will leave with a final thought. It is possible that we are indeed computers programmed into a specific system in which we have been programmed to not be able to think certain thoughts. For example, how we came to be. =)