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

Again I would like to start by thanking my opponent, for his contribution and patience, I think what I am suggesting is quite difficult to grasp, It seems I have been able to improve my argument from round 1 into round 2, but yet Con has fully grasped the point I am trying to make concerning that God is a being which is Absolute with everything in creation and yet and the same time different, It seems that we have cleared up the confusion between understanding that something can be different to something yet it doesn't have to be separate, The source, God, is able to be one and different with creation, yet still maintain a single identity. and can still be one unit, I appreciate I have digested this philosophy and analogy far longer than my opponent and the audience, and that for it to fully seem comprehensible to them may take a different style of thinking, which can be considered out of the box. Firstly it seems, when given my analogy of the sun and the sunshine to my opponent, to portray how God is able to be, one and different to creation, that he has mistaken my meaning of the word 'Quality' to have a different meaning, he says, " please describe what you mean by "quality". Quality is how good something is, and therefore irrelevant to this." I will point out, that maybe this is where the he's confusion sets in. When I say the sun and the sun-shine are the same in quality, I do not mean, that they are very very good quality, mean their, 'distinctive attributes by way of chemical composition', Verily the sun-shine shares the same qualitive chemical attributes as the sun, for indeed the sun is it's source, and the sun-shine exists by virtue of the sun. So after having established both are the same in quality, and do indeed share that same chemical attribute, which are not distinct to each other We can now move on to understanding how, although the same in quality, the do not act as the same, For indeed I say again, both are the same yet different, which the point of my argument here, If the sun were to enter my bedroom window, I would be foolish to think the sun-shine has entered window, Indeed I would be burnt to cinders, If the powerful burning sun were to enter my room. The sunshine however is always very welcome. With that said, I further point out how the sun analogy, offers a perfect explanation as to how God can be situated in one place, like the sun is, yet He can expand he's energy everywhere, ie, the sun-shine, is an expansion of energy from the sun, both are the same in quality, and God being analytically the sun, is still remained situated almighty in one spot, and exist individually, and yet is able to emanate everything from himself and perform differently. It is important to remember my original contention, Inconceivably One And Different. Inconceivably would mean, un-imaginable, so it would be fair that I understand, how difficult this is for my audience and my opponent to grasp, and that this philosophy which has it's origins in Vedic literature, is much richer and much more elaborate, than my feeble attempts to portray it, so I can only hope I have done well. Secondly I would like to congratulate my opponent for pointing out my inclinations to pan en theism, mostly I am assumed to be a pantheist, which is quite different. Now the Carl Sagan, Saga. We have managed to conjure up between us. I would like to point out again, that Carl Sagans quote offered by me was in serious reference to my question of the subject of re-incarnation, My opponent did not address the seriousness of this claim by a highly respected scientist and skeptic. Instead he offered his own Carl Sagan quote which was not in reference to the second topic of this debate, ( Reincarnation ) But the first, ( God is an absolute being) I pointed this out but he insisted on offering it again. which if I address further will derail my attempts to explain the plausibility of reincarnation Con Posted. Carl Sagan said that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. I do no see Cons point in posting this quote, other than that, Carl Sagan, obviously thought God to be similar to Einstein's God, in that God clearly exists, but is impersonal. As God being personal or not, is not my argument, I will ignore his point further, unless co like to point out where I am mistaken. I will offer another Carl Sagan Quote that could further strengthen my Vedic argument for God's energy being responsible for the Creation. First I will attempt to give an explanation that may help my opponent and my audience in understanding this quote with more clarity, According to my understanding of Vedic literature. Shiva is a Hindu God, with power such as God, immense powers, so who is really God? you may ask. This is where thinking outside of the box comes in, Well as I have already tried to explain, God is able to be simultaneously one and different with creation. So it starts like this. God is one. who became many. God has two energies, 1 spiritual. 2 material. Where does God get he's energy from? one may ask. God is an absolute supreme all powerful being, and has no need to draw energy from elsewhere, God is self sufficient in energy, that is the nature of God, no energy is able to exist independently, all things in existence, are independent on God. So how is everything is creation manifested. Just like gold is used to fashion many different objects, everything seems to be different but in fact shares it's existence to the source. Plato quoted. Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related. Plato. Furthermore the universe is also a living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related. As Carl Sagan says we are star stuff. Hence everything is fashioned by virtue of Cosmic material, God's multifarious energy. Ok so God exists as One singular being, and then fashions everything by virtue of extremely powerful potency, such as the energy we see manifesting in the universe before or very eyes. God is also able to create other beings and Gods by way expansion and replication of Himself- something like a self replicating molecule, but on a Godly scale. God is able to replicate an almost exact version of himself, yet keep back just a few mystical qualities. Hence we have other powerful Gods in the Vedic literature, Shiva is one such God. I now offer my Carl Sagan Quote as promised, to explain the way God is using he's potency and energy to make creation possible. The late scientist, Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos asserts that the Dance of Nataraja (Tandava) signifies the cycle of evolution and destruction of the cosmic universe (Big Bang Theory). It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of." Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but also the very essence of inorganic matter. For modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter. I now hand the floor back to my opponent, and apologize for not having the space to address the issues of re-incarnation in fuller depth, Maybe I took on more than I can chew by raising two subjects in my debate, Hopefully I can address them further in the next round. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.rationalskepticism.org...