The existence of a god is a logical certainty

As this is the final round I'll go line by line. First, he says, "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." Time is the measure of change in existence. When something exists so does time. As long as we accept that the Universe has changed we accept time. The way we know that existence has changed is because before there was existence, there wasn't. The fact that something came into existence proves time. Another example that can be accepted is that our (or at least my) perception has changed. Originally I only perceived my round 1 argument, but then I perceived yours as well. Whether they or I exist is irrelevant, it is certain though that the perception existed, and that it changed, therefore there is Time. If there is time, the Universe had to have a beginning, as I have shown. For my second premise he says that, "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." For the Universe to stem out from a focal point, something would have to create the focal point. Example: The Big Bang theory requires something to create the particle that exploded. There is no logical explanation for the particle, except that it came from something else. He then says that I am contradicting myself because breaking the laws of physics is illogical. If he claims that it is impossible for something to a) create itself and b) for something to come from nothing, his argument that the Universe could have self0created doesn't work, unless the Universe broke the laws of physics. Now, something breaking the laws of physics seems illogical, but it is necessary for creation. As it is impossible to break the laws of physics only a being that cam do impossible things could create the Universe. That means only a supernatural thing could do so. "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." I have just shown that a) it is not an assumption, but logic, and b) I have shown that creation depends on this conclusion "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." Yes, it is possible, but there is still some existence if not in the conventional sense. "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. =)" Regardless of the first point, my argument stands. Second, maybe I'm special because I have just shown how the Universe came to be. If my opponent is right and you can't see my perfectly clear logic, then he has an unfair advantage, but I trust that all of y'all can see my logic and will vote for the best debater. Why vote PRO? Because I have upheld all my premises, and no fallacies were found in my logic. I sincerely thank my opponent for a deep and very abstract debate. Metaphysics is always exciting.