God does not Exist

Salutations, I appreciate the fact that you accepted my proposition and agreed to this debate. I agree that the burden of proof lies on the theist, and look forward to your refutation of the logical conclusions reached in the following debate. I'd like to put forward two axioms that certainly we all can agree are apodictic. 1. We Exist. 2. "Right Now" is happening. If you were to contest these two points then we have no basis off of which to argue, and this discussion would shift into some sort of a debate in the realm of metaphysics, which I am not interested in. Given those two points, simple syllogism can bring us to the conclusion that there exists a deity. Next I would like to present two possibilities. Either (A. The Universe had a beginning. - or - (B. The Universe did not have a beginning and has therefore existed for eternity. A. The Universe that had a beginning. I would like to begin this debate with a simple illustration: If I were to stand in a hypothetical room containing infinite space, holding a gun to the head of, say, Matt Damon, waiting to pull the trigger, but before doing so I had to ask the permission of another person, say, Scarlett Johansson. So I ask Scarlett Johansson "Scarlett, can I shoot Matt Damon?" and she responds "Of course! But first the person behind you must shoot him." It is at this point that I realize that there is a person behind me, who also has a gun pointing at Matt Damon's head. He also has to ask permission before pulling the trigger. "Scarlett," he asks, "can I shoot Matt?". Scarlett, true to form, replies just as before "Of course! But first the person behind you must shoot him.". The exercise repeats again and again and again with the same circumstances. Will I ever be able to shoot Matt Damon? Of course not! Not unless someone at some point along the infinite chain of gun-wielding Matt Damon-haters' ability to pull the trigger is NOT dependent on someone behind him shooting first. (End Illustration) Let's discuss existence. You, me, mountains, baked beans, ears of corn, South America, the planet earth, et cetera all exist dependently. Meaning they derive their existence from something else. Mountains exist because of certain geological principles in place and the movement of tectonic plates, you exist because your parents copulated resulting in your conception, ears of corn exist because they were planted and harvested by a farmer, et cetera. Everything we see and experience derives its existence from something else, and therefore exists dependently. Unless there exists something which does not derive its existence from something else, the source of all other existing principles and objects, our existence and therefore aforementioned Axiom 1 ["we exist"] is impossible. Therefore, we are left asking what exists independently and derives its existence FROM ITSELF, a property of a deity. If such an object, item, or being does not exist, existence in and of itself is impossible because the aforementioned chain of dependent existence extends forever, without me ever "shooting Matt Damon", or without us existing. Either; I. There exists something that derives its existence from itself, a property of a deity -OR- II. The Universe itself derives its existence from itself, which is a property of a deity. I. If you are to argue that something, separate and discrete from the Universe generates its own existence, you are assigning it the attributes of a deity and arguing that a deity exists. To simply put it, any item without divine attributes cannot generate it's own existence because for it to "create" itself, it must first exist, and if it already exists then it need not create itself, as the creation has already happened. This is a logical paradox in the observable scientific world, however for a deity who exists outside of space-time it is not an impossibility, as the logic of the observable universe does not apply to a being outside of, separate and discrete from the observable Universe. II. If you were to argue that the Universe derives its existence from itself, you are arguing that the Universe has the attributes of a deity, and supporting my arguments for the reason presented above. Also, the Universe, bound by the laws of physics, cannot generate itself out of nothing, considering the fact that energy and matter is not created nor destroyed, but even if you were to contest the validity of that scientific principle, a self-generating Universe would still be a paradoxical argument and therefore impossible for the reasons listed above. In conclusion for argument A, a Universe with a beginning is a logical impossibility, leaving only one remaining possibility, that is, possibility B; The Universe is eternal. B. The Universe with no beginning The concept of the "Eternal Universe" can be disproven quite simply using both simple logic and the application of existing scientific principles. Technically speaking, only one proof is necessary to disprove the concept, but I will present both for redundancy's sake. Proof 1: Logic It is impossible for the universe to have existed eternally. A time-space model reflecting that of a geometric ray is possible (if there exists a God), meaning the Universe has definite starting point and continues forward for eternity, but a universe that has already existed for eternity creates a logical paradox that is impossible to avoid. If the Universe existed for an eternity before now, that means there was an infinite number of moments leading up to this one. If you have a job to complete with an infinite number of tasks, will you ever complete the job? Of course not, because the number of tasks literally does not cease. By the same token, if an infinite number of moments had to occur before this one, it is impossible for us to ever reach this moment, and that would mean that the aforementioned Axiom 2 ["'Right Now' is happening."] is false. This is obviously not the case. Proof 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics The applied Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that each time energy is used it becomes less useable. No energy actually is destroyed, it simply reverts to less useable forms. For example, after burning a wood log all that remains is the ashes, burnt material, and heat that was released, the same net amount of energy, but nowhere near as useable as the original log. It is because of this law that we know that eventually, at some point in the distant, distant future, every star in every solar system in every galaxy in the universe will burn out, the same as our own, not because the energy is gone, but rather because the energy has reverted into a gaseous form that is not useable in the reactions necessary for a sun to exist. However, if the Universe existed eternally before now, then every star in the sky, including our own sun would have already burnt out. If it takes a finite amount of time for all energy in a system to transform into an unusable state, given an infinite amount of time, that transformation will occur, but we are aware of the fact that our sun still burns today and therefore we know, by a second proof, that the Universe is not eternal. In conclusion, let's summarize the logical processes that we went through in this argument and affirm that they are sound; We recognized both that we exist and that "right now" is occurring. Next, we also recognized that the Universe either had a beginning or did not. We proved that, assuming it did have a beginning, said beginning is impossible without something that exists independently. We proved that said independently existing object could not be the Universe in and of itself using logic, because in the act of creating oneself something must already exist. Then we used both logic and existing scientific properties to eliminate the only other possibility, an eternal universe. I look forward to you response!