The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

Okay, so right on to refutations. I apologize in advance, my arguments will be inherently odd, as they will deal with theoretical physics. The second law of thermodynamics, that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, is used by my opponent to imply that since entropy (he uses the term disorder) in increasing, a God must have existed to have, "wound the clock," in the beginning. This is absurd, and a misuse of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics simply states than in a closed system, entropy increases. This is usually used to mean that it is impossible to transfer heat from a cold to a hot reservoir without at the same time converting a certain amount of work to heat. It is also impossible for any device that can operate on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work; it can only get useful work out of the heat if heat is at the same time transferred from a hot to a cold reservoir. This, of course, means that there is no possibility of an isolated "perpetual motion" system. Also, from this it follows that a reduction in the increase of entropy in a specified process, such as a chemical reaction, means that it is energetically more efficient. Heat, as used above, means loss of energy from the said system as radiant energy due to friction or similar processes. Nowhere, in the law itself or in scientific circles, has the second law been implied to refer to the universe as a whole; it is commonly used for thermodynamic systems, which have a discrete boundary. Furthermore, if you choose to use it to refer to the entire universe, you must prove that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system, which it may not be. To be a closed thermodynamic system, the universe would have to have a discrete boundary, through which no new energy may be added. There are many theories in place currently which have our universe as but one among many, the so-called "multiverse." IF this is the case, then energy may be moving from our universe to others, and from others to ours. Our universe, then, may not be a closed thermodynamic system, and thus the second law would not apply to it as a whole. Even still, the amount of energy never decreases due to entropy; it is transferred from "useful" to "useless" energy. Those terms are relativistic, and mean nothing beyond their context. Which brings me to my opponent's next example. My opponent uses E=MC2 to state than neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed. This is actually the principle of the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy, which are separate ideas. E=MC2 means that energy will equal matter times the speed of light squared, and nothing more. It equates matter and energy equivalence, and unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. My opponent then uses this to imply that, since no matter can be created or destroyed, there must be an agent independent of the laws of physics that can work outside them to create all the matter and energy in the universe, which he calls God. This is non-sequitur. The energy and mass could have existed prior to the Big Bang which is generally considered to be the beginning of our current universe, preserved from a prior universe that had collapsed into a Big Crunch (as ours may eventually do as well). Therefore, the presence of matter and energy does not imply BY ITSELF a God.