The existence of God

Rules1. This is not a debate over which god since many times it derails into why x religion is true. However the God I am defending is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, and omnipresent.2. No semanticsI would like to ask you a questionWhat reasons do you have for holding the position of atheism? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?First argument• Something exists. (the universe)• You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.We can we infer things about Him from what He created• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)• He must be eternal (self-existent).• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).• He must be timeless (He created time).• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.Second ArgumentHow do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.