Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[Jehanne]

1. Why wouldn't past events by physical objects? With sufficient knowledge, you can count the causes of each effect all the way back. And that's the problem. If there were an infinite number of causes/effects, the current causes/effects would not have happened yet--because there would have always been one more to consider at the other end of the whole causal chain. There would never be a '3...2...1...now'.
2. An infinite number of changes means the same thing as existing an infinite amount of time. What Hilbert's Hotel illustrates is there is no such thing as an actual infinite quantity of anything. Sequential events can certainly be counted so qualify as as quantity. 
3. Here is your sound logical argument:
IF
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3
CONCLUSION: An actual infinity is not a rational thing.
In addition, you do not have a defeater for the above. To deny it with no reasons is special pleading for your infinite physical reality for which it's sole purpose is to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion there had to be an uncaused first cause.

---

Well, timeless beings are changeless by definition. Change is something that happens in time. A timeless being can't take an action or have a thought, because those are events, and events require time. Although it also seems clear that 'timeless beings' can't actually be 'beings' in the sense of 'something that exists'.

That is, a 'timeless being' is an absurdity. How long can a timeless being exist? No time at all.

The only thing that could be timeless is an omniscient immaterial mind. God's decision to create was a timeless one in that there was no period of indecision preceding it. God could not have created the universe sooner. It simply is that God was timeless and changeless sans the universe and temporal and changing with the universe.

Steven,

It is known from modern quantum field theory that there are uncaused events.  It is simply unnecessary to postulate an infinite series of causes.  I suggest that you read Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker (I bought my 5th edition copy for under $5, shipping included):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Physics

In there, they will tell you that it is a meaningless question to ask what came "before" the Big Bang; there was simply "nothing" prior to it.  That's the best that modern physics can say at this time; as Professor Sean Carroll pointed out to Craig in his 2014 debate, it is just better to say that there was a "first moment" of time and leave things at that.  Of course, one of the eternal models of cosmology out there may be correct; as Morriston has pointed out to Craig, an infinite future is symmetric to an infinite past, and as both are fully describable by modern mathematical physics, there is no difficulty beyond our ability to conceptualize that which is simply not conceptual.  A quantum oscillator is no different and neither is quantum tunneling, and yet, all of these ideas are universally accepted, and indeed, the electron microscope exists because of that!  Go backward in time or forward and things look the same.  Just as space may be infinite (in which, there would be, per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, an absolute infinite set of events), so, too, time may also be infinite.  If you are going to claim that the Universe has an "edge", you might as well say that it has a beginning, also, and simply leave things at that; such does not require a "god" and per Occam's Razor, we out to exclude such, just as Craig dismisses polytheism.  On the other hand, if the Universe is infinite in spatial extent (the best explanation so far in a flat Universe), then it stands to reason that the Universe is infinite in time, also.  In either case, no "god" need apply.

---

Steve: How about you put each of those arguments in a few sentences and I will rebut them? I am not going to debate via Youtube/link proxy.

You are an answer in search of a question with that attitude.

Some things take longer than a few sentences.