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

It is unfortunate that my opponent has decided to engage in condescension and manipulation rather than respectful disagreement in his argument. In respecting the intelligence of the readers I will assume the majority of the readers will recognize my points have been clear, and that my opponent simply does not understand my points and so expects no one else will. My opponent, in an ad-hominem attack, is attempting to paint me as distracting when in reality I have sought to disprove my opponent's assertion that my definition of God is a logical contradiction by using generally accepted science which reaches similar conclusions as my definition. In his first point labeled (0) in his R3 argument, my opponent clearly misunderstands my statement on his use of semantics. The semantics I was referring to was his claim of "creation of everything". He says God couldn't have created everything because he could not have created energy. This does not prove my definition of God is a logical contradiction for several reasons. Let's examine two: 1)- The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, rather it can only be transferred. My definition of God states: "The beginning and source of everything". This is the definition he decided to prove a logical contradiction per his R1 argument: "So let's review what that definition is; 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. create: v. 1) bring (something) into existence. " I assert that God is the beginning and source of everything. If energy is a constant, and cannot be created, my opponent's assertion is, then, a creation paradox which makes little sense. Something that is eternal is not temporal, and therefore has no beginning. Science recognizes that energy is eternal, and not temporal for it had to be present in order for the Big Bang to have happened. I assert that in the beginning this energy, in the words of John (though I do not ascribe to Christianity, I believe it is summed up best in this statement) was of God, this energy was with God, and this energy was God. God is the source of the energy, and both God and his energy are not temporal. Energy cannot be quantified without mass, and neither can God, the source of all this energy. Unless my opponent can prove an alternative to an eternal energy before the Big Bang, he can neither say that God requires creation. It is a scientific fact that energy does not require creation, yet my opponent asserts that God cannot be God because he could not create something that could not be created. THAT, my friends, is a logical contradiction. 2)- My opponent's contention is based on a logically impossible act, much like the omnipotence paradox. An example of this logically impossible act is creating a square circle. For God to exist as the creator of everything, he need not create himself as he is eternal. He need not create his own energy as his being the source of that energy would mean that energy is also eternal. Science has not proven the existence of God, but science empirically states that energy is eternal. Energy, then, like it's source- God- cannot be created. My opponent is requiring a logically impossible act to prove the existence of God. THAT is a logical contradiction. My opponent goes on to accuse me of making changes to the definition which I did not. I mention it simply to show the readers what I am referring to, but I will leave it to the readers to judge whether or not I actually made this change, which I believe I clearly did not: "Here in round three, he tries to *change* his definition of God so that it only requires that He create "the universal energy. " My opponent then goes on to make his "bread and butter" claim in this debate: "Con says that I "cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy. " Why would I want to? It helps prove my argument! God cannot have created energy, therefore there cannot be a God who created *everything*. " Again the creation paradox, and the logically impossible act of creating that which cannot be created. I believe the Law of Conservation of Energy, though it doesn't prove the existence of God, it does prove that my definition of God is not a logical contradiction: God is the beginning and source of everything. Note I have NEVER stated God "created" energy, as I do not believe universal energy to be independent of God, rather OF God. Though my opponent claims this is changing my definition of God, it is not. It is completely consistent with my definition. In my opponent's next contention he claims that I agree with him. This is not true. I presented the fact that energy cannot be created. He agreed with me. He then tried to turn this argument around against my definition, but I have already shown how his requirement is a logical impossibility. God is not temporal. Energy is not temporal. God is the beginning and source of everything. Science says constant energy is the source of mass through the Big Bang. Science does NOT go on to say energy created energy because that is a logical impossibility, but this does not change the fact that this energy is present. I postulate this energy is of God. This is not a contradiction of logic, rather it is consistent with science. My opponent attempts to place a beginning for the beginning. "God cannot be the creator of everything because he cannot create what cannot be created. " It is illogical to require a logically impossible act to prove somethin exists, especially when you are using the very attributes of that thing in this circular reasoning. My opponent repeats this point throughout the debate, and this round: "In order for it to exist, it *by definition* created itself. " "I expect the audience can easily see that if God is not a creation, then he couldn't possibly have created himself. " "By Con's own admission, energy was not created, yet God was supposed to have created it (God created *everything*. ) These statements cannot both hold! " "Here Con has agreed with my contention that self-creation is impossible, but his God *requires* self-creation unless He doesn't exist. " Get the picture? I have refuted this one argument in several different ways, using several different logical approaches. I will rest my case on this point as I feel the audience has enough information to discern logic from contradiction. "my only job is to logically disprove the existence of his God. His only job is to rebut my disproof. Con isn't doing his job. " -My opponent has not presented an argument which disproves the existence of God. My opponent accuses me of the Special Pleading Fallacy: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. . http://www.nizkor.org... The problem with this assertion is that the circumstances surrounding everything but energy are empirical science. This is adequate justification, while my claim would have to exclude this adequate justification in order to actually be a fallacy. My claim is that science empirically states that energy cannot be created. God is the source of this energy. Both God and energy are eternal therefore exempt from creation through the Law of Conservation of Energy. My opponent, in turn, requires a logically impossible act to disprove God. This statement sums up my opponent's argument: "The only way Con's God could have created *everything* that exists, is if his God doesn't exist. " I believe I have effectively shown how this reasoning lacks logic. Thank you.