Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

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.

---

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.[1]   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. [2]  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. [3]

---

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. [4]

1. What does that have to do with anything I've said? Where did the fluctuating quantum vacuum come from? It cannot be past infinite no more than anything else that is physically changing can be past infinite--or are you saying the quantum field is somehow timeless? To extrapolate that energy fluctuations of virtual particles, as far as we know, happen uncaused in a quantum vacuum to universes springing into being is a leap only taken for no other reason than the uncomfortable logical conclusion there had to be an uncaused first cause. 
2. Only someone who does not want to think about it avoids the question of what was prior to the Big Bang. 
3. In all that verbiage, what you want us to believe is that the universe is a brute fact without explanation. Most people are not satisfied with such an answer when it goes against all reason. 
4. No way in the world am I going to rebut your constant youtube and link posting. You are so confident that these people have defeated 'WLC', you should understand it enough to lay it out for us.

---

Steve:

1: You can't tell the difference between an event and a physical object? Seriously? Check the definitions of the words. One difference: a physical object can be affected by physical forces, a past event can't be changed by any force. No matter what, it will always have happened.  
2. What Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates is that an actual infinity of physical objects is counterintuitive. No one has come up with a logical proof that it's impossible, which is what I asked for. Counterintuitive things have turned out to actually be the case before. I think such a thing is highly improbable, but I'm not arrogant enough to state that it's flat-out impossible based on a thought experiment and my intuitions.
3. You should have preceded that with a proof that only rational things can exist. Quick: How long is a Planck Length divided by two?
3.1 Why do you bother replying if you're not going to pay attention to what I say? I clearly stated my personal opinion that there is a first cause. Your interpretation of my motivation is obviously false and it would be as reasonable of me to conclude that your motivation to misrepresent me involves dishonesty. But the law of charity prompts me to presume that your complete misunderstanding of my motivation was innocent. And my motivation is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my positions. Appealing to my motivation makes it seem like you are trying to cover up awareness that you know your position is weak. But that itself would be an appeal to motivation, irrelevant to whether you position is rationally justified or not.

In short, insinuating or stating that a person's motivation for a statement in a reasonable discussion is anything but that it's what they think is true, is poor form.

3.2 Another 'thing' that could be timeless is 'nothing'. I can't think of anything that doesn't actually exist that can't reasonably be described as timeless. Spaceless too,

1. Events happen to physical objects. We are talking about the stuff universes are made of. You can't say events are infinite but the stuff the events are happening to are not. Every past event described had at one time affected a physical object.
2. No, 'counterintuitive' is the wrong word because the definition ends with "but often nevertheless true". There is no indication anywhere in the universe or in the mind that indicated that an actual infinity of something is possible let along 'true'.
3. I don't think abstract objects exist. They lack causal power. However, that's a two-edged sword for atheists. If they believe abstract objects are real things, then how does that jive with naturalism? There is something that exists outside the natural world??
3.1 I'm sorry I misunderstood your position. Usually the only reason people hold on to a possible infinite number of cause/effects is because they are forced to by their worldview. '
3.2 Okay, but the idea of God is not incoherent prior to creation as some atheist would have us believe.