God does not exist

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. I will simply try to debunk his arguments, but I won't try to prove hat God exists. If I fail to refute his arguments, he wins. If I succeed in refuting his arguments, I win.Pro gave three arguments against the existence of God, so I will try to answer each one.I. Argument from the first law of thermodynamicsFirst, he made this argument, which I summarize in a syllogism:1. If God exists, then God created the universe.2. The universe cannot be created.3. Therefore, God does not exist.I take it that premise 1 is just his definition of God, so I won't dispute it. He's attempting here to debunk the existence of any creator type god, but not any god whatsoever (after all, many mythologies contain gods who do not create, so his argument doesn't address those types of gods).He supports his second premise from the first law of thermodynamics. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and the universe is made of of energy, it follows that the universe had no beginning.There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, laws merely describe the natural world. They do not tell us what is possible or impossible; only what is actual or what the ordinary course of nature is. So there is no reason to think it isn't possible for a supernatural being to violate the laws of nature, or to cause nature to behave differently than it usually does when left to itself.Second, if he thinks the second law of thermodynamics is just as certain as the first law of thermodynamics, he's going to run into a contradiction. If the universe has no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite amount of time. But according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe increases with every process. And since Pro admits that the universe is in a constant state of change, it follows that the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. Given enough time, it will run out of usable energy. It will undergo what cosmologists refer to as "heath death," or "thermodynamic equilibrium," in which there will be no more activity of any kind. There will be no stars or life. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, then it should've already reached thermodynamic equilibrium, but since it obviously hasn't, it follows that the universe had a beginning some finite time ago. That means either the second law of thermodynamics was violated or the first law of thermodynamics was violated. Since both laws describe how the physical world operates when left to itself, the fact that one or the other was violated shows that there was (or could have been) some kind of supernatural intervention. But either way, it simply can't be true that the universe had no beginning if we take the second law of thermodynamics seriously.There are also two philosophical reasons to think the universe had a beginning.1. An actually infinite collection cannot exist in reality.2. A beginningless past consists of an actually infinite collection of equal intervals of time.3. Therefore, a beginningless past cannot exist in reality.Here's the other argument.1. An actually infinite collection cannot be formed by successive addition.2. The past was formed by successive addition.3. Therefore, the past cannot be actually infinite.Both of these arguments show that time had a beginning, and if time had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning.So Pro's first argument against God fails. Let's look at his next argument.II. The impossibility of a timeless beingHis second argument can be summarized like this:1. If God exists, then he is unchanging.2. Matter and energy are constantly changing.3. Therefore, If God exists, then God is outside of time.4. It is not possible for anything to exist outside of time.5. Therefore, God does not exist.Against, his first premise is just a definition, so I won't dispute that. I also agree with his second premise. My problem is with his third and fourth premise.The problem with the third premise is that it's possible God created the universe and entered time simultaneously with creation, in which case God does not exist outside of time.The problem with the fourth premise is that besides being unsubstantiated (i.e. my opponent needs to give us arguments for it), it seems that some abstract entities exist timelessly. For example, the laws of logic exist timelessly. There are possible worlds in which time does not exist, and since "Time does not exist" is a true description of those worlds, then the law of non-contradiction applies to those worlds, which means the law of non-contradiction is an atemporal entity.Since his third and fourth premise are both false, Pro's second argument against God fails. Let's look at his next argument.III. The impossibility of an immaterial being having causal influence over the material world1. If God is all powerful, then God can influence the universe.2. If God is not made of matter or energy, then he cannot influence the universe.3. Therefore, God cannot be both all powerful, and immaterial.4. But God is defined as being all powerful and immaterial.5. Therefore, God does not exist.Whether 1 is true or not depends on Pro's reason for thinking 2 is true. For example, if he thinks there is some logical impossibility for an immaterial being to influence the material world, then that wouldn't count against God's power since power is not the ability to engage in logical absurdity. Nobody would think that their inability to draw a square circle on a sheet of paper had anything to do with a lack of power. It's not as if you could do it if only you were more powerful. So a logical impossibility does not count against God's power.But if he thinks 2 is true because of some physical or metaphysical limitation, then I will have to accept that 1 is true. And, in fact, I do accept that 1 is true. I just question whether it's consistent with Pro's reason for believing 2. So there may be an incoherence in Pro's argument that isn't evident because he hasn't fleshed his argument out yet.Now let's look at that second premise. Whether Pro thinks the impossibility is logical, physical, metaphysical, or whatever, he hasn't defended this premise, and right now I see no reason to think it's true. In fact, there seems to be at least one reason to think it's false, namely that we ourselves are immaterial souls capable of having causal influence over our own brains. We know this because we are able to act with intention. That is, our mental states (e.g. our beliefs, desires, intentions, etc.) are able to have causal influence over our brains. Now, if our minds were merely emergent properties of our brains, then our minds would not have causal influence at all. The direction of causation would only go one way: brain --> mind. But since we know the direction of causation goes the other way (mind --> brain), then we know our minds are not merely emergent properties of the brain. Properties do not have causal powers; only substances do. Since the mind has causal powers, the mind is a distinct substance from the brain. The mind is an immaterial entity that has causal influence over the physical world, which disproves Pro's second premise.I grant this 3 follows from 1 and 2, but since 2 is false, we can't really conclude that 3 is true.Since 4 is just a definition, I won't dispute that.So basically, Pro's third argument fails primarily because (1) has hasn't shown that the second premise is true, and (2) I have made an argument showing that the second premise is false.ConclusionAnd that's it. Pro made three arguments against the existence of God, and they all fail.