There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

//I agree with this. // Good, we agree on this. Regarding solipsism, we can ignore this since I did agree with the first premise. //The opponent claims that "Allah changed his mind" and claims to use as proof the happenings of the ordainments of the 5 obligatory prayers Muslims pray. // I did use proof and you didn't refute it so I extend it. //The opponent posits that God has a mind// I was showing that what your god thought at one point was changed. It seems my opponent does not understand that the phrase "to change a mind" has to do with a change in what was thought or said which is what your god did. You god said one thing but then was convinced otherwise. He changed his mind thus my claim still stands. //Prophet Muhammad didn't "convince" Allah, rather he made "supplication" and it was answered, as the link says. // To be honest it really does not matter if Muhammed convinced Allah or not, the fact is that Allah said one thing, the 50 prayers, but he then revised his claim to 5 prayers. //Since the opponents (erroneous) premise is that God has a mind, then the conclusion is false. // This is not true. I never said god had a mind, I was using an expression that said that god thought one thing but then revised it. He changed his mandate. Anyone can see this. // he thought that God has a "mind" and that God "changes" his alleged "mind". // Change ones mind is an idiom that means "To decide differently than one had decided before" which is what happened in the case of the prayers. This is not disputable and I will restate it in the conclusion. //In conclusion, there was no "change" that occurred to Allah. Prophet Muhammad made supplication for the prayers to be lowered and it was answered and lowered, 9 times, according to the link. // This is utterly false. My opponent did not contest that Allah first said 50 prayers but then said 5. By definition that is a change. My point stands. // he claims that something can create itself// Not true. I never claimed that something can bring itself into existence, I claimed the universe came into existence out of nothing, uncaused. What my opponent is doing is strawmanning my argument. I am NOT arguing that the universe created itself. My 3 observations still stand since my opponent only refuted a non-existent argument. Conclusion: Allah originally said 50 prayers but Muhammed talked to him and Allah then said only 5 prayers. Allah went from one state, a state of saying he needed to be prayed to 50 times to a state of saying he needed to be prayed to 5 times. This by definition is a change thus my previous argument "1) Allah changes thus he has a beginning. Then we go up to argument 1; Premise B: Before Allah existed there were a series of events leading to his existence, and then I crossapply my opponent's own argument which means something must have created Allah thus meaning he is not the "supreme being" and is not god. " And I should win on this alone! But moving on, my opponent tries to say my argument about quantum fluctuations says that the universe made itself but this is just not true. I said the following: "Since our universe has 0 total energy and quantum fluctuations can create matter from nothing our universe can come from nothing. " This does NOT say the universe created itself, it says it came from nothing.