Belief

[theVOID]

Oooh, sounds like fun.

1. "Nature encompasses all that exists."

2. "[Some] deities are claimed to 'exist' outside of nature."

3. "Therefore, these supposed deities do not exist."

Fail

Nature as you have described here is incompatible with the other picture of "nature" and "super-nature"; Their boundaries are usually defined by the presence or lack of material interaction. These things would still "exist" yet there is a distinction that can be made, thus to say that "nature encompasses all that exists" is either a concept that is inconsistent with the one the person you are debating actually holds, or is a bare assertion for which you would have the burden of proof.

1. "Nothing is not created."

2. "Something is created (and Something cannot be self-creating)."

3. "Therefore, the uncreated creator is Nothing."

Gah. The Ancient Greeks were right all along! It's Chaos!

You assume all things that exist (are things) are products of a creation.

Things don't necessarily need to be self creating (which at first thought seems logically impossible, and in any case, that's a positive claim), but if it had always existed (for instance if 'nothing' is impossible) then it can easily "transition" it's self from one state to another by means of it's own effects on it's self, any feedback loop has this capability as a bare minimum requirement.

The burden of proof is yours

---

1. If god exists he is an immaterial being
2. All beings are wholly material (as referenced by all of reality)
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Assumes this being is immaterial, unless this is more of a refutation of an immaterial being claim and not a blanket disproof of gods you have a bare assertion.

2. Is an inductive argument, it's also the Black Swan fallacy. "We've only ever seen white swans therefore no black swans exist" - The best you can really do here is criticise a presented explanation involving an immaterial being as being entirely inconsistent with all background knowledge. Example by analogy, if you find Swan droppings, and you've only ever seen white swans, then for someone to suggest that it's from a black swan is to suggest something inconsistent with background knowledge, yet this does not mean that it was necessarily not a black swan. If it's not necessary then it's not proof, making your "Therefore" require the prefix "probably".

1. If god exists he would want all humanity to come to beleive in him and is capable of eliminating reasonable unbelief
2. Reasonable unbelief exists amongst humanity
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Assumes something about the character and motives of this being. Again this would only be applicable to a being who is defined specifically as wanting that, which I doubt many theists believe because it's clearly not the case.

1. If god exists then he is capble and willing to eliminate evil
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Has the same problems as your last two Premise 1's.

1. If god exists then he is just and merciful and judges us all on our death
2. On judgement hell is a destination for some humans, but as a punishment in neither just nor merciful
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Same assumptions again. I think you should really be phrasing these more like "If a just and merciful god exists he judges us all on our death" They might not be as comprehensive, but you're going to avoid flaws in your argument that are easily demonstrated.

2. Just nor merciful by what standard?

1. If god exists then he is allowed us freewill and does not interfere with our decision making
2. God commands us to beleive in him, and only him, else we will suffer consequences (OT) and as a consequence tries to interfere with our decison making
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Should be "If a god who has allowed us free will exists, he does not interfere with out decision making" I'm aware of some theologians who would dismiss the idea of entirely "free" will. They are in the smaller numbers but none the less it helps your argument to change the phrasing.

2. I think this is very much true.

3. Should be "therefore a god who gives us free will and influences our decisions does not exist"

Aside from the correction in phrasing it's a good argument, best served as a refutation.

1. If god exists then he is a purely immaterial being capable of changing events in the universe
2. The universe requires a material cause and effect mechanism to change events in the universe (as referenced by all of reality)
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. Same problem, try not to spread the blanket too far, holes appear as you stretch it.

2. This is another Black Swan. Again the best use of this induction is to point out that it's an explanation inconsistent with background knowledge.

1. If god exists he is the creator of the universe and wouldn't choose to create the universe from disorder given the unpredictable results
2. The universe started from disorder
3. Therefore god does not exist

1. You make assumptions about the character and motivations of the god again.

2. This may very well be a false premise, especially should some concepts of the singularity be true, that would be a single dimensionless net neutral quanta of energy, and I really doubt you can get any more order than that.

Nice try, but your running into trouble in places.