I Thank my opponenet "Cuaroc" for posting his insight about the topic

The first round is opening statement and that the second would be the rebuttal

For this moment I shall argue with simplicity and brevity with that I shall focus my any of my responses to my rebuttals. I would not be in citation and in clinging to that of the term god and all its man-made attributions, which are religions. I shall not argue in a deistic fashion but in manner that would imply only a being of greatness away, for this moment, to religious implications.

Here I shall give an argument all knows about:

I - The universe is physical, thus is a product of something before it.

II - An infinite set of preceding causes is improbable and unthinkable.

III - Therefore there should be a cause which is the first, this is the greatest being.

The first part implies that the universe is physical, which is only acceptable, as materialists always assert, therefore if it so and motion as to make change is its requirement, it requires not to be eternal, for if every thing is caused by something else then what would have started this, if a Great being does not exist and eternality is to be given to matter then this violates one of the pinnacles of science, the law of causality, that every thing should be caused with regards to entities concluded to be tangible and is observable, if so it requires a cause not to be Physical since if so then the contention has not change at all. Eternality is impossible to physical entities, which is described in the second line, if matter has been continuously moving and changing then where did it get such energy to do so and if matter is not and has only began moving at some point in time, thereby creating something out of its first movement then what inspired it to move? I do agree that existence requires observation which can be done in two manners direct and indirect, and it is true that the proofs for that being is indirect, but does not imply is immediate dismissal for its possibility for realness for a number of impossibilities one could not explain if it is to removed. The other one being direct, in this case every thing is tangible, however if every thing is tangible and is of course equal there should be an ultimate being of such greatness. For if the mind, as I would accept to be an influence of St. Anselm to me, can conceptualize a being of such greatness it can only satisfy such mind conceptualization if it exists in both the mind and to reality, Therefore it is the greatest for if it only in the mind then how come it is ? I do agree with the points held by different irreligious schools, to which I may be classified as well, however if all schools of thought have reasonable arguments for their claims is it still better to consider only one? it is then much acceptable to create commonality to these two ideas otherwise contradictory.

One cannot argue about existence, none can prove it, The way Jose Rizal (Philippine National Hero) cannot be defend to have existed at some point in time by merely depending to this being alone but there are his deeds, to whom should they be credited? the same way as there is the universe, how did it come about? My question would be simple; How can something come from nothing? explain how it may be possible before creating a criticism that may be irrelevant to my points by giving his own statement/s, for if this is unanswered then how can one assert that a Great being have never existed? Just by giving his points and leaving these unanswered, can that prove that God has never come to reality?