God is an absolute and complete being, and re-incarnation can not be ignored on a rational basis.

and why I think, what he has concluded as a rebuttal, is of the topic. Or maybe I have not portrayed my premise clearly enough. And now I wish to put forward my reasons. Firstly, I would like to point out that he has mis-understood my definition of God in this argument, I argue that God is an Absolute being by definition. And absolute means, NO separation. But he has wrongly concluded, that I said, God is separate from the creation. he said. "So the god is both separate to his creations and not separate at the same time. Thus, this creates a paradox": And that is a false representation of my premise, I never claim God is separate from his creation. I claim God can be one and different with creation, I see he has mistaken the meaning the the word DIFFERENT, to also mean SEPARATE in his rebuttal, When you state below P1. Anything God creates is not separate of him. P2. The creation is different/separate from him. C. It is both separate and not separate, so this is not true. I will now offer my own version of how I think your conclusion should be. P1. Anything God creates is not separate from Him. P2. Nothing in creation is separate from God, C. God is Absolute. Absolute means NO separation. God is able to be situated in one place but also at the same time, He is able to be everywhere, and part of everything I gave the analogy of the sun and the sun-shine, which both are the same in quality, but yet are different, if the sun was to enter your bedroom window, it would be silly to think the sun-shine entered your window. Both are the same in quality but both are different God is able to be inconceivably one and different from he's creation, and again I offer an analogy above of how the sun and the sunshine can be the same in quality yet different in quantity, and how the sun can be situated in one place and the sunshine extend everywhere. You start your rebuttal by saying, By "God", I assume you mean the Christian God. When I never mentioned the Christian God, Although the Christian God has great attributes when defining God, I think I can further claim any that might be missed out, by claiming God is infinite and absolute. Which is exactly like the Christian God, but not exclusively in definition. God by definition must have certain attributes to be worthy of the title of God, For example the minimum term to be used when defining God, is Supreme, If God is not Supreme, then he is unworthy of the title, God. Here are some synonyms of the word supreme. From Collins; cardinal, chief, crowning, culminating, extreme, final, first, foremost, greatest, head, highest, incomparable, leading, matchless, mother (of all), paramount, peerless, predominant, pre-eminent, prevailing, prime, principal, sovereign, superlative, surpassing, top, ultimate, unsurpassed, utmost So It makes no difference if you assume the Christian God. Simply by definition. I find no difference in what the Christians find to be God and what a Muslim or a Hindu finds to be God, God is absolute, and infinite, so absolutely any conception you can fathom God to be, he can accommodate infinite conceptions, indeed he is. You then say I claim the universe is part of God, This is correct. But you then state, I have yet to give proof that God is the universe and not at the same time. When what I am really saying is, that the universe is a part of God, not that God is the universe. such as the Material Cosmic Manifestation, ie the universe, is an expansion of He's external material energy. in other words the material energy, ie the Material Cosmic Manifestation, /the universe is only an extension of Gods external material energy. The universe exhibits attributes a God would have, Such as energy which can not be created or destroyed, ie eternal it just transforms, also this material energy is able to manifest into innumerable objects, not only on this earth, but such as the infinite universe of trillions planets galaxies and stars. The universe exists and exhibits attributes of a divine energy. Please Note: I am not claiming the universe is God, But that the universe is an expansion of Gods external energy, He can create infinite universes, that is an attribute of God, not just in marvel comics, But hey presto. It's reality Jim but not as we know it. You further go on to dismiss the quote I offered from Dr Carl Sagan as an argument-incarnation and further use your own Carl Sagan quote to rebuttal my argument for God being an absolute being. I think the quote I presented offers some weight to my argument and can be taken as something to consider seeing as who the quote comes from and he being a great skeptic. I remind you again to take into consideration the depth of what he is saying and the many known cases open for research, Dr Ian Stevenson himself doesn't suggest a physical process as evidence, but that the propelling evidence of children who can remember past lives, as I can't say it better I will offer to quote again. ""there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, 1995. You claim Dr Sagan then claims he may be wrong, but he is curious enough to mention it in His book. You then claim that some considered Dr Ian Stevenson work has been described as pseudoscience. But just below that commenting wikkpedia, it goes on further to state. [5][6] Others have, however, stated that his work was conducted with appropriate scientific rigor. [ I Thank my opponent for putting up with me thus far, and no hand the debate back to him and look forward to a brand new round. I also hope the audience see my point.