Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

So we come to the conclusion of this debate and I want to first go ahead and thank V5RED for being a part of this debate. This has been a good first debate for me. I appreciate your civility throughout our discourse and wouldn't mind debating you again in the future.=======================================================================I want to first point out that in Round 2 I laid out, to the best of my ability, my argument for the possibility of the existence of something that can be defined as 'god'. In CON's response, it was explained that my argument was not structured correctly and that the conclusion could not be reached via the premises.In Round 3 I fixed the technical details of the argument to better articulate the premises, where they follow from each other, and why they can reach the conclusion.I have proven my argument to be logically sound and coherent.In a more simplistic format, I can also structure my argument in this way:P1: Matter is observer-dependent.P2: This observer-dependet matter applies to the classical world. Not just the Quantum.(P3 is not an accurate Premise)P4: This observer-dependent reality is functionally information - specifically, Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.P5: The information that makes up our universe functions much like a hologram, or some sort of projection of data.P6: The information (P4 - P5) can be processed by only two things (that we know of): Computers & minds. (You can also argue that the brain is basically a computer, but that may be something for another debate).Since brains have been demonstrated as observer-dependent in P1 & P2, it also concludes that our minds can be considered separate from our brain as the brain is contingent on observation from consciousness. If our universe is being processed in a mind, this mind can, likewise, be separate from a brain.The conclusion was that it is therefore possible that our world is being processed by a mind. This mind fits the definition of 'god' outlined in my introduction.Without the premises structured as they are, the argument falls apart.My argument may not have been structured flawlessly, however I was able to quickly fix the technical details.Unfortunately, CON focused on the structure of my argument instead of a refutation of the argument itself.In this way, I believe this argument still stands as it is and has not been effectively refuted by CON.I'll go ahead and comment on a few of your points to conclude this debate:"Your conclusion is that a being that can time travel could have created reality in its mind. None of your premises relate to the possibility of time travel or a being that could time travel."That is incorrect. I did not make an argument, nor conclude in a being that can 'time travel'. I concluded that such a being would appear to be omnipresent due to it having access to all four of our dimensions - at will. I demonstrated this via example and the explanations from Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson.My premises need not be related to time travel for this reason."None of your premises demonstrate that a mind or a computer can contain individual self aware entities. There is a huge difference between storing date on things that are self aware and things that are not self aware."Sell-awareness is not a subject within this debate. The only thing required for any of my premises is consciousness (i.e. which-path knowledge).Any sort of conclusion would simply logically follow as self-awareness does not refute the reality of the self-aware entity. Also, if self-awareness refuted any claim within this debate, it would more likely refute the claim that a self-aware entity can reside in a computer simulation.This would also bring into the discussion: How can one know that said entities are self-aware? One can only factually know one's own sentience. However, this is another discussion."You need to show how your premises relate to your conclusion."I have accurately done so. Unfortunately, you have been unable to notice this, so I tried to simplify the argument even further."Since you did not make an argument, all I could do was see if any of your sources contained an argument that would reach your conclusion that your time traveler god could possibly exist and could create the universe in the way you claim it is possible for it to exist, that is in its mind."This is a mistake in your approach to this discussion and to my argument.I am not required of my argument to give a source that outlines an argument for me. Requiring this of someone would be as if you were arguing with someone about abortion and didn't like how they structured their argument, so you looked for an argument from the sources that were provided in order to refute that instead. The structure of my argument wasn't completely academic, but it still had enough structure to keep itself logically coherent and sound."...the premises I objected to are not supported by the sources you cite. I literally quoted your sources which contradict the claims you make based on the sources."You did object to some of the premises, but you failed to provide any sources or solid substance to effectively refute the claim. You only seemed to have personal objections.Aside from the personal objections you provided for the premises, your main objection was to the structure of my argument, and less towards the argument itself.I will certainly take note of this and find a way to bring out more sub-premises with the material I already have that may create better flow of the argument and encourage discussion of the material itself while taking away the unecessary attention to argument structure."You then ask me to cite a source for my personal observations, that is not something you cite sources for. My experiences are my experiences."Your personal observations are anecdotal, and do not apply to this debate. Therefore, I asked for citation in order to give you the benefit of the doubt."You also seem very infatuated with sources. All that sources do for you is show that claims you use in premises are reasonable claims."I may not be a professional debater, but I do understand how important sources and citation is in an argument. Without sources, any claims you make within an argument are simply unfounded claims.Showing that my premises are reasonable claims is very important in an argument. If you fail to show this, then the argument loses validity.I see nothing wrong with my use of these sources."I am not sure why you chose to engage in a formal debate if you had no intention of presenting an argument."I had every intention of presenting an argument. You're misinterpreting my statement of "Believe it or not, I am no fan of structured arguments like this.". In other words, I prefer talking directly to people. I prefer making presentations and explaining things in more exhaustive details (without 10,000 character limits). This format is something I just need to get used to.I appreciate formal debate for what it is. I just also think it is limiting. So to finally conclude, I will summarize my take on this debate:1.) Roud 1:In the introduction I laid out the definition and expectation of what I would be concluding in my argument.2.) CON accepting to debate me under these terms.3.) Round 2: My argument was presented. 4.) CON responded to the structure of my argument as well as some personal objections to some of the premises. 5.) In Round 3: I fixed the technical issues with my argument and further elaborated on the details of the argument.6.) CON further objected against the structure of the argument and personal objections to the premises/conclusion.In the end, I believe this argument to stand as valid granting the possibility of our universe being the informational structure of a mind that fits a general definition of 'god' as outlined in this debate.Thank you for your time, and thank you for this debate, V5RED.