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

Thanks to my opponent for doing well on his first debate, and I apologize for misunderstanding your claim. 1. God "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 omni-present [1] , so he is everywhere. If he is everywhere, then he is not in a fixed place. If he is not in a fixed place, this argument is incorrect. The sun and sunshine analogy fails to work as sunlight is just a light from the sun and the sun isn't everywhere at the same time, neither is the sunshine. Plus, please describe what you mean by "quality". Quality is how good something is, and therefore irrelevant to this. "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." You have yet to say if mutable and eternal energy exists. "The universe is a part of God" this means panentheism " the universe is part of god. [2] God is omni-present, so he is in everything. However God cannot be in everything if everything is a part of him, therefore he is not in everything. Instead, everything is in him, not the other way around. "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." You did not provide any actual refutation, only criticism, so I'll state my evidence. "God is an absolute complete being." 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."[3] If he is not a being, he cannot be an absolute being. What is wrong with using my opponent's source to refute him? Nothing wrong. 2. Reincarnation "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." Stevenson considered that the concept of reincarnation might help modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development. He traveled 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives. He did not actually suggest a physical process about how it happens.[4] However, some say that it is pseudoscience, some say it has scientific rigor. [4] As you can see, this is possibly highly debated, and therefore is not adequate evidence. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://simple.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...