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

I see this is your first debate here. I never debated religion debates before, so I guess we'll see how it goes. By "God", I assume you mean the Christian God. Anyways, let's move on to the refutation. " Absolute Being,( Absolute means no separation, ) so actually everything that exists, in material and spiritual form, is not separate from God, but rather instead is an actual expansion or emanation of God's divine energy, In understanding the aspect of material nature, i.e. The universe, or for a better term, The Material Cosmic Manifestation. God is inconceivably one and different with Himself and creation. (Please try and grasp this ) I offer an analogy of the sun and the sunshine to further understand how I propose to suggest, that something can be, Inconceivably, one and different." So the god is both separate to his creations and not separate at the same time. Thus, this creates a paradox: P1. Anything God creates is not separate of him. P2. The creation is different/separate from him. C. It is both separate and not separate, so this is not true. The universe is a part of God, which you state, however you have yet to give proof that God is the universe and not at the same time. You have yet to prove God exists. You did not even say what you mean by "energy". Plus, you said that God is an "Absolute BEING", however, Carl Sagan disagrees with you. "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. "-Carl Sagan [3] Carl Sagan says God might not be a being. "Ian Pretyman Stevenson, MD, (October 31, 1918"February 8, 2007) was a Canadian biochemist and professor of psychiatry. Until his retirement in 2002, he was head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, which investigates the paranormal." He did not actually proof the reincarnation in a scientific way. "There has been a mixed reaction to Stevenson's work. Critics have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and his work has been described as pseudoscience." [1] Pseudoscience is described by Wikipedia as: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."[2] Ian Stevenson does not have any actual proof regarding reincarnation. "there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" -Carl Sagan Then he says that he himself also might be wrong. " Sagan relates the story from the Chapter "The Dragon in My Garage" (which he notes follows a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard L. Franklin) of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."-Carl Sagan [4] Reincarnation is just like the invisible dragon, not really proved, not really disproved. You did not give evidence why reincarnation exists. Your only "evidence" is quotes from people, which does not have evidence either. For example, one could say "Apples are sometimes bananas" without saying things like how many times and where he/she got it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...