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

My opponent seems to have taken a rather curious tack. He has wound all over the map in attempting to avoid any special pleading on his part, and what he has done is completely fail to put even a minor dent in my logical argument, in fact he didn't even address it! Let's look at his points in detail (For easier exposition, I will refer to God as Con defined Him, as "Con's God" or "his God"): A: Law of Conservation of Energy. (In which Con votes for Pro by denying his God's existence. ) Con tells us "The Law of Conservation of Energy. .. teaches that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. " Please note kind voters that if energy can not be created, then it is impossible for his God to have created it. Yet Con's definition requires his God to have created it (as part of *everything*. ) What he has done here is presented us with yet another argument *against* his God's existence! If only I had known he was going to argue my side for me. .. B: The general consensus in science: the Big Bang. (In which Con tries to distract us from the debate at hand. ) What science has or has not proposed as the origin of the universe is absolutely not at issue here, this is a red herring of the highest degree. It has nothing to do with his definition of God or my logical argument proving that his God cannot possibly exist. In short the Big Bang whether true or false does not, cannot, explain how his God can create Himself. Self-creation is impossible. C: The general consensus in religion: God created everything. (In which Con brings up all those religious people. ) The general consensus in religion is not relevant to the logical argument I put forth. Even if every religious person on earth says God created everything that exists, He still cannot possibly have done so. There must be at least one thing that God didn't create (Himself,) and as such God so defined, cannot exist. D: What is God made of? (In which Con speculates on things not at issue. ) What God is made of is not at all relevant in this debate. The only question before us is, can his God exist. It is clear that He cannot as I already explained. E: What is the origin of the universe? (In which Con tries to change "everything" into "universe". ) Con says, "There are only two logical options regarding the origins of the universe. " Con's definition of God is that He created *everything* not just "the universe" however limiting my opponent may choose to make the latter noun. What Con cannot escape is that everything *includes* God and as such, God cannot possibly have created *everything*. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In summation, my opponent spent almost 500 words meandering around, but never lighting on, my logical argument. As such, I will simply re-iterate it, and because of Con's graciousness, I now have *two* logical arguments against his God. Remember the definition of God for the purposes of this debate is the one Con decided on. God created *everything* that exists. 1) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because it would have to be the creator of itself, which is logically impossible. 2) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because, as asserted by Con, energy exists and cannot be created. Let's see if Con can stay on topic during the next round and discuss my logical arguments that disprove the existence of his God, or will he continue to meander around discussing issues that are not germane to the topic at hand. ..