There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

Opponent said: "Regarding the universe creating itself: It did not. The universe came from nothing." I agree with this. Opponent said that it may or may not be true that we exist, he said: <I urge voters (who may or may not exist) to take the aforementioned into consideration> This statement is a contradiction in a way; you can’t “urge” or inform that which is non-existent. I will proceed since the opponent has accepted the premise "we exist" for the sake of argument. The opponent claims that “Allah changed his mind” and claims to use as proof the happenings of the ordainments of the 5 obligatory prayers Muslims pray. The opponent posits that God has a mind. This is false. A “mind” is an an attribute the creations have, since God doesn’t resemble anything (as proven earlier), is sublime of such an attribute. Prophet Muhammad didn’t “convince” Allah, rather he made “supplication” and it was answered, as the link says. Opponent says “This is an example of change because as my opponent's definition agrees with, he is going from one state to another, a state of mind to another.” Since the opponents (erroneous) premise is that God has a mind, then the conclusion is false. Furthermore, it seems that the opponent is equating God with a human in a way; he thought that God has a “mind” and that God “changes” his alleged “mind”. In conclusion, there was no “change” that occurred to Allah. Prophet Muhammad made supplication for the prayers to be lowered and it was answered and lowered, 9 times, according to the link. Summarizing the four points of the opponent’s contention, he claims that something can create itself. The initial point of proving that the universe could not create itself was to prove that something couldn’t create itself, but I guess I didn’t make that clear. But, then again, since the opponent agrees that the universe could not have created itself, then how can he claim that a part of the universe can create itself? Is it not apodictic that the part cannot create the whole, or that since the whole of something can't do something, then the part can't? Nonetheless, something can’t create itself. I will prove that something can't create itself: Existence precedes action. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "creating itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim that the universe created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: it would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself.Furthermore, this claim infringes upon a basic law of philosophy: The Law of Non-Contradiction, which is "the basic law of logic which states that it is not possible for something to be and not be at the same time." [1]Aristotle had once said, regarding the Law of Non-Contradiction, "It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong to the same thing and in the same relation" [2] I urge my opponent to stop being arrogant; as you can see, he domineeringly proclaimed "Essentially, my opponent's arguments fall or Allah is not god and I win". I never even had a chance to respond, yet he does such. [1] http://www.philosophybasics.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...