Please choose the topic...

My opponent seems to stray back and forth between topics. It originally seemed he wanted to discuss the structure of the Universe, and how it is structured by God. I accepted this notion, and the debate as Pro as prescribed in my Round 1 argument. He then suggests in R2 that he is "suggesting ideas for what God looks like". In R1 I dismissed the notion of debating the personification of God, which I believe is personal and non-debatable, but that is exactly what debating ideas for what he looks like would be. He concedes this point by calling the notions "ideas". I will not debate "ideas", as the rationality of ideas is subjective, and I will not partake in a debate based on what voters would turn into a measure of intelligence due to the known biases amongst ye members of debate.org. In other words, the voting would turn into a "who do I agree with" vote, rather than a "who's debate was more valid" or "who had better arguments" vote. My opponent claims that God is "a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything". I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God. I contend that since God is Ultimate Reality, all intelligence is contained within his/it's/her existence. Whether he is a "spiritual" being is irrelevant as we do not have a concrete, uniform, and universal definition for "spiritual being". My opponent also concedes this point by stating that he cannot possibly understand the complexity of God or spirit. Ghosts: I believe there are different levels of universal consciousness, all emanating from the universe itself, or being manifestations of a conscious Ultimate Reality. I am not saying that all consciousness IS God/Ultimate Reality, rather that all true consciousness is OF God/Ultimate Reality. In other words (in the case of humans and our level of universal consciousness) what we observe, how we observe it, and what we record of our observations are all part of the whole of Universal Reality because what we observe is real- regardless of what we describe it as, or what others' opinions are of what we observe, what we observe is real in the sense that it has an ultimate reality, and is a part of THE Ultimate Reality. There has been (to our universal knowledge) no testable, and repeatable evidence suggesting the true essence of what we may label as ghosts. Rather than attempting to universally define ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. (any entity described as "spiritual", excluding God), I ascribe to the belief that other levels of consciousness exist, and whatever the true definition of these entities (if they, in fact, exist), they are a manifestation of a different level of universal consciousness. I have my own personal theories on the mechanisms of this realm of consciousness, but they are not debatable as I don't seek to convince others of my theories, rather they are formulated relative to my experience, observations, and knowledge. I will not "speculate" as part of a debate, especially on what others believe to be the reality of these entities as I have not had their experiences, nor observed their observations. I do not believe these entities are "hard to have belief in". You either believe they exist, you believe they may or may not exist (have not made a judgment on the issue due to lack of experience or interest), or you don't believe they exist at all. I cannot agree with my opponent's assessment that they "are rarely seen by anyone", "tend to hide away", "are evil demons", etc. A lack of experience and observation cannot rationally lead to the other conclusions. I am at an advantage with experience in the paranormal because I am a hobbyist paranormal investigator, but this debate is not about my observations. God: My opponent claims he is unsure how "God contains the universe". I don't believe God attempts to "contain the universe", and frankly, I don't even understand the statement. I don't believe God is a human, or a shape with "hands" like a person, as it would be contradictory to evolutionary thought. Humans have hands because two of our extremities they have evolved into hands. The humanization of God is due to our experience as humans, and I cannot rationally accept any human aspects ascribed to a universally superior or Ultimate Reality. I cannot comprehend the rest of my opponent's statement beyond him stating what we will never know. What we will never know is the essence of my description of Ultimate Reality, and choice to assign the proper name "God" TO that Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality, again, is that which cannot be denied by science or religion. Both are limited by our knowledge, but in the end, both are subordinate to Ultimate Reality. One seeks to explain Ultimate Reality rationally and logically through tests and measurements (science), and one seeks to explain Ultimate Reality at a more personal, romantic, poetic, and figurative level (religion). Both can borrow from each other to enhance our understandings and our lives, but neither can ever reach the level of Ultimate Reality, whether measured in knowledge or being. Structure: I believe the structure of our galaxy is fairly obvious to those who have sought this knowledge and have the tools to observe it, and the structure of the Universe, because of it's vastness, is always being discovered, and re-explained by science. My opponent's assessment of the structure of the Universe is purely hypothetical and based on a personification of God and the Universe, rather than actual observation and science. When we speak of structure we must consider the observable before speculating on the non-observable. He, again, mentions that God is a spiritual being. He does not provide a definition for spiritual being, but if we must use the word "spiritual" I believe it would be more prudent to define God (in this terminology) as "Ultimate Spirituality". I will not speculate on the statements of Jesus, a biblical figure, as our debate is not biblical or about the bible. I do not believe you can quantify God, and this notion is contradictory to humanizing and/or incarnating Ultimate Reality. Can we speculate as to the level of ultimate consciousness Jesus may have reached as a human? Yes, but the claim that he is God is both untestable and unmeasurable in any case- whether we are theologists, scientists, atheists observing religious writing, WHATEVER- we can only speculate as to our understanding of the scriptures, but we cannot define or reach an Ultimate Reality from our own interpretations. As for heaven and hell, I believe hell is a logical antithesis for ancient minds, the cultures and times in which it was developed, etc. to the observable heavens. We now know what the "heavens" consist of, and can make more rational assessments of the existence of heaven and hell. I won't, however, accept this as a topic of debate for the same reasons I have already mentioned. Hell is completely contained within the realm of speculation and belief, and GS is free to believe what he wants regardless of my personal judgments, assessments, observations, experiences, or beliefs. Thank you.