God does not exist

In my first post, I argued that the first law of thermodynamics (or any physical law for that matter) cannot act as a metaphysical straightjacket on reality. Laws merely describe the usual course of nature, and there is no reason to think a supernatural being couldn't violate them or produce something that nature couldn't produce on its own.In response, Pro simply asserted that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is just to state the first law of thermodynamics. This does not address my argument. He needs to defend his claim that it's impossible for the first law to be violated, even by a supernatural being. Otherwise, the first law does not serve as an argument against a creator God.He also claims that "Just because the universe has always existed doesnt [sic] mean that it should have already reached a state of thermodynamic equilibrium." But I already explained why it does. It's because if the universe has no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite amount of time. He ignored that point.He claims that the amount of matter and energy in the universe has something to do with when the universe might reach thermodynamic equilibrium. However, given an infinite amount of time, it doesn't matter. If the universe began in a state of zero entropy, it would reach thermodynamic equilibrium in a finite amount of time regardless of how much matter and energy exists. It follows that given an infinite amount of time, it will have already reached thermodynamic equilibrium. In fact, if the past is actually infinite, there is no point in the finite past in which the universe has not already reached thermodynamic equilibrium, and the reason is because at every point in the finite past, the past is already infinite.I also gave two philosophical arguments for why time must have a beginning. Pro completely ignored both arguments. Then he went on to provide an argument for why time must NOT have a beginning. It's because either God has always existed or the universe has always existed, and either way, the past must be infinite.But it doesn't follow that because something has always existed that it therefore must have an infinite past. It could be that God existed in a state of timelessness at the past boundary of the universe. If so, then God has always existed even though God's temporal duration is finite. The same thing cannot be said of the universe since, as Pro admits, mass and energy are in a constant state of change.Pro previously argued that God cannot exist independently from the universe since to do so would entail that God is timeless, and it's impossible for anything to exist in a state of timelessness. I gave two responses: (1) I pointed out that Pro had not given us any reason to think timeless existence is impossible. (2) I gave the laws of logic as a counter-example, showing that something exists that is timeless, and I gave an argument for why we should think the laws of logic are timeless.In answer to (2), Pro said that the laws of logic "only exist so long as they are used by man or any other creature." But that is not so. Square circles were impossible even before sentient creatures existed, and the reason is because square circles are violations of the law of non-contradiction. The laws of logic do not depend on us for their existence. The laws of logic are necessary truths. They exist in all possible worlds, including worlds without humans or any other creature.In answer to (1), Pro said that because we can ask, "When did it exist?" about anything, that everything must exist in time. But that simply doesn't follow. The ability to ask a question doesn't mean there is necessarily an answer. For example, I can ask, "How much does the color blue weigh?" but that doesn't mean there's an answer to the question. It doesn't mean that blueness has a weight.Pro asserted in his opening that if God is immaterial, then he cannot have causal influence over the world, which means he isn't all powerful, which means an all powerful God does not exist. I gave two responses: (1) I pointed out that Pro had not given us any reason to think that an immaterial being cannot interact in the physical world. (2) I made an argument for why we should believe that immaterial beings CAN have causal interaction in the world. Minds have causal interaction over the brain.In response to (1), Pro argued that to cause anything in the physical world to move, one must add energy to it. But if God is not made of energy, then God cannot add energy to any physical object, and therefore cannot cause it to move.There are at least a couple of ways God could cause physical objects to move, even if he is not made of energy. First, God could create energy ex-nihilo at the moment of causation. Second, God could use energy that already exists in the physical world to cause motion. Either way, it is certainly not impossible for an immaterial being to have causal influence in the natural world.In response to (2), Pro attempted to equate the mind with the brain and argue that they are the same thing. But I have argued that they are not the same thing by noting that the mind has causal influence over the brain. Pro ignored that argument.But there are many other arguments for why the mind and the brain are not the same thing. The most obvious reason is because of the indiscernibility of identicals (an expansion on the law of identity). According to the indiscernibility of identicals, if A and B are the same thing, then whatever property A has, B also has, and vice versa. A and B have every property in common because they are the same entity.The the mind and the brain do not share every property in common. For example, everything about the physical brain is open to third person observation, but nothing about the mind is open to third person observation. The content of the mind is only open to first person observation. Also, the mind has intentionality. Thoughts can be ABOUT something. But the brain isn't about anything. One can have a mental perception of a green sweater that is perfectly clear in one's mind when dreaming, but nothing in the brain is green. So the mind and the brain are not the same thing.So far, Pro hasn't given any sound arguments against the existence of God. His burden of proof, therefore, has not been met.I look forward to conclusions and wish Pro luck.