Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

It seems my opponent has misunderstood my arguments, and is trying to con the readers into using his interpretation rather than my actual statements. Let's examine his contentions, and how my argument in R2 refutes his R1 position that my definition contradicts logic. "A: Law of Conservation of Energy. (In which Con votes for Pro by denying his God's existence.)" -Not true at all. Let's further examine his statements so that I may explain, though I am sure the readers understood my initial point as it was pretty clear. "Please note kind voters that if energy can not be created, then it is impossible for his God to have created it." -Now, if we look at his initial contention: "Con has asserted that God is "The beginning and source of everything," in essence we are talking about a God that created absolutely everything in existence." If God is the source of this energy, and God is not a creation, then his energy follows the laws of the Universe. This goes back to the religious attributes of "all powerful", "present everywhere", and "all knowing". See, my opponent fails to examine the entire Law of Conservation of Energy which also states that energy can only be transferred. One way in which energy is transferred is in (and this is why I mentioned the Big Bang theory) becoming so concentrated that mass is created as a result. This indeed is a theory, but scientists cannot move beyond this point. As I stated before, Richard Hawking says pre-Big Bang is God's realm. It is the Law of Conservation of Energy, and other empirical laws, that have prevented scientists from explaining the origins of the Big Bang due to the lack of logic these laws bring to infinite mass, and an always existent universe. This does not support my opponent's claim, rather it proves it is his position that lacks logic. "B: The general consensus in science: the Big Bang. (In which Con tries to distract us from the debate at hand.)" -Not at all. The Big Bang is essential to defending the logic behind my definition as the Big Bang requires the same logic- everything came from ONE original source. "the Big Bang whether true or false does not, cannot, explain how his God can create Himself. Self-creation is impossible." -Right. And that is why we rely on the Law of Conservation of Energy to prove that the origins of matter lie in one extreme source of energy. Science fails to explain that source. My opponent cannot logically present an argument that thousands of physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists have failed to present. If he CAN, he has not done so. "C: The general consensus in religion: God created everything. (In which Con brings up all those religious people.)" -This was brought up to show the relationship between the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source, and the consensus in religion that God is that energy source. Where they disagree, they actually explain each other because both are philosophically at odds, and both refuse to reconcile this point. God is the universal energy source of the Big Bang- however science eventually empirically explains the theory. "D: What is God made of? (In which Con speculates on things not at issue.)" -Actually what I discussed was the impossibility of proving what God consists of, and this lack of proof being related to the lack of explanation for the origin of physical mass. My opponent is arguing the strawman here, and completely missing my point. "E: What is the origin of the universe? (In which Con tries to change "everything" into "universe".)" -Should I address this? I will assume the readers agree that "everything" is "within" and "part of" the "universe". My opponent makes the following statement as well: "God is that He created *everything* not just "the universe" however limiting my opponent may choose to make the latter noun. What Con cannot escape is that everything *includes* God and as such, God cannot possibly have created *everything*." He continues to ignore the Law of Conservation of Energy. If God is the "source and origin" of "everything" (the Universe IS everything), then my contention is not contradicted. I never claimed God created himself. In fact I stipulated that God was the source of the universal energy of which the Big Bang was a result. This is not only consistent with science and logic, it is consistent with religion. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, where does this energy come from? The energy is God- the source and origin of everything. He cannot be created, nor destroyed. He is, therefore, the only plausible infinite in science- a requirement in explaining any logical scientific theory of the origins of mass. My opponent sums up his argument in two contentions that are easily refuted with my above arguments: "1) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because it would have to be the creator of itself, which is logically impossible." -My opponent is playing semantics, but ignores that even in the ignorance of religion God's energy is in everything, everywhere, and always. This concept follows the Law of Conservation of Energy. My definition of God follows this empirical law as well. My opponent claims this is logically impossible, but he cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy. My definition- God: The beginning and source of everything (the only definition my opponent chose to debate) is not a logical contradiction. "2) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because, as asserted by Con, energy exists and cannot be created." -My opponent is playing semantics. He is stating that God cannot have created "everything" because God cannot create himself. He is ignoring, however, that outside of energy being a constant- everything else exists. Everything else came into existence through the concentration of non-created energy (because energy cannot be created). This is the basis of the Big Bang theory, as well as the Intelligent Design theory. In simple terms- something came from nothing. We don't know how, when, why, or even IF God "willed" himself into being. What we know is that the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created, nor destroyed. We also know that scientists point to a Big Bang, that originated with the highest concentration of energy in universal history. What science cannot explain is the source and origin of that energy. It is logical, however, to say that God is the "source and origin" of everything- including that energy. My opponent has, thus, failed to prove that my definition is a logical contradiction.