No Gods Exist.

So my method of disproving all Gods will be process of elimination. The first thing we will cover is something being god by definition. Some people may define god as being Energy, Toast, Love, Etc. Just about anything really. While a person who does this can say that god exist, The problem here that the thing they are describing is no longer special. If god is just a rock, Then why are we calling it god? Why not just call it a rock? I know that no person who believes in a God would actually support this line of thinking. So we can eliminate such definitions from the pool. I think when we look at all of the world's religions, There are two common features of God that can be establish. 1) God has Agency. 2) God created the universe. My logic for this is simple. Anything that a person would call God would have created the universe. If the thing that created the universe doesn't have agency, Then the thing is not willing creating the universe, Which makes it a natural thing and refers us back to my first objection that we cannot simply define anything as god. Now that we have an idea of what a god is, We can now start eliminating possible gods that don't work in reality. Lets start with all of the omni gods. This would be any god that has one or more infinite qualities. Such as: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence, And any other similarly infinite concept. My claim is that such a god cannot exist due to the impossibility to the contrary. That is to say that infinite qualities cannot conform with the universe. This is proven by the fact that the number infinity itself cannot produce a truthful math equation. Math is an abstract concept that allows us to measure features of reality. Anything that cannot present a real world answer using math cannot exist in that state of affairs. This will be my evidence that an omni god cannot exist. Next we need to address Gods that live outside of time and space. The root of this problem is that people have a poor definition of existence. Scientifically, There are four words for existence. People often confuse these words with each other and this causes them to believe that certain things hold physical existence which simply don't. Only things that fall into type 1 existence can actually exist. The other 3 types are used to describe abstract concepts within one's brain and none of these things exist. Time and space (or spacetime) falls into type 2 existence. This means that a god cannot exist outside of them, Because there is no location for time and space to exist out of. When physicist speak of space time. What they're really talking about is the motion that was created from The Big Bang. A lot of people think that time and space didn't happen before the big bang. I reject this claim outright. Humans cannot see outside of the observable universe and there is good reason to believe that the spacetime effect happens apart from our universe. There isn't even proof that the big bang is the beginning of everything. For all we know, There are big bangs happening outside of the observable universe everyday. For all we know, Our big bang has exploded and reformed a million times. This destroys the notion that there is a necessary being for the big bang that must exist outside of time and space. No my opponent could posit that all of the big bangs required such a thing, But the argument still falls on it's face because existing outside of time and space is not a thing and trying to prove that God created every big bang means that science can no longer support them since they've traveled out into the gap. This is my evidence that a god cannot exist outside of time and space. So now that we've eliminated all of the most ridiculous gods, We're left with superpowered gods that have to hold physical existence. This is where things get easy. A super powerful god must follow all laws of physics. Such a god might be able to do things that seem impossible to us, But these things would still be part of physics. These gods would just look like really well trained magicians. The problem with this type of god is that they must hold either matter or energy to exist. This makes them observable. Furthermore, Holding matter and energy means that they are limited to the speed of light. Slower in fact. A being capable of creating the universe would hold more space than light and therefore would move slower. This means that this god must exist in the observable universe. So now we reach the final problem. The only kind of god left must be observable and can't leave the universe due to physical restrictions. Such a god would be easy to discover. Science has mapped almost all of the observable universe and there is not even a hint of evidence that this Zeus level god exists. After going through all of this. My evidence makes it clear that the only tentative scientific position that is justified to hold, Is that no gods exist. Now lets move on to your critiques. You said: "how would one explain the big bang theory" No one can explain the big bang theory due to planck time. God has no explanatory power so god cannot explain it either. Before we move off this point, I want to be clear on what an explanation is, Because a lot of people get this wrong. An explanation is something that gives you the details about something that you didn't know before. The way to know if something is an explanation is if it can make predictions. While god can ACCOUNT for the big bang. God cannot EXPLAIN the big bang. The only way that god could have explanatory power would be if we knew how gods works. Snice god has never been discovered, We don't know how god works and therefore cannot make predictions. The means that absolutely no worldview can explain the big bang and claiming as much is simply a lie. This claim doesn't really hurt either side, So we could keep talking about it. But it's not going to ever provide proof for either of us. You said: "Science has no certainty towards how this freak of nature" Certainty is just a person's feelings about the truth value of a belief or possible state of affairs. This cannot be evidence because truth is true regardless of anybody's opinion. If you're going to appeal to science. Then I want to hear about the science, Not the scientists. You said: "but there is speculation that a higher being, " Speculation is not evidence. Science does not suggest God as a possibility for anything at all. Every single peer reviewed idea ever posed in science has been secular. You said: "Why does nature follow the laws of nature" You're thinking of the wrong kind of law. A speed limit sign, For instance, Is a prescriptive law that tells you how fast you're allowed to go if you don't want to be ticketed. A law of nature is not using the same word for "law" Laws of nature are simple descriptions of what we already see. Things don't "follow" the laws of nature. Things happen in a uniform way and we call that a law. It's not the same word. I'm going to say this for the sake of having a good debate. If you try to tell me that the laws of nature are something that has to be followed, I'm going to have no choice but to ignore that line of reasoning, Because at that point, You would just be playing word games and not really trying to get to the truth of the matter. So I've categorically debunked all of your counterproofs. Furthermore, You never really connected any of these to god. This is important. You can provide counterproofs all day, And you might even be able to prove them, But if you can't show the entailment between your proofs and a god, Then you can't debunk me. As killshot also said in the comments. You don't have to prove god to beat me here today. You only have to disprove my claim. If you're going to make a counter claim, Then you're just accepting an extra burden of proof. If that's your choice, I respect that. But I'm just making a suggestion.