Resolved: God exists

The second point not in support of the first?This is an odd statement to make in the very last round of the debate. I have been treating the arguments thusly (quite clearly and explicitly) and my opponent has seemed to have been in agreement with that or, at least, not objecting to it.To wit:Me, R1: "Finally, the second point fails to support the first."Pro, R3: "Now, I will grant that I did not draw the connection between objective standard of logic, morality, and truth (necessary preconditions for intelligibility) as clearly as I should have so let me try to clarify."Agreement = Majority?It is interesting that Pro made this leap, and unfortunate, since he spent so much time rebutting an argument from majority that I did not make. I merely said that agreement is necessary. This can be as simple as agreement between two individuals in a sea of dissenting opinion. Furthermore, I did not assert that this agreement generates truth or knowledge, but rather:"While agreement varies, it is only our agreement that binds us to any standard."And:"The objection being: why should anyone else adhere to a relative standard? And the answer is simple: because we agree to and that is the only way to obtain utility from it."I didn't say that agreement produces an objective standard. I said that the only reason we adhere to a standard, and the only way we can get utility out of a standard, is by agreeing with it. If no one uses a standard, then it is useless, even if it is objective.Pro also seems to fail to understand what I meant by "practical relativism.""My opponent makes several other arguments. He claims that appealing to objective standards doesn't work because not everyone agrees on objective standards. Again, here he appeals to his standard of the majority's agreement. I've already shown this to be false, but, this also places people's agreement as the standard for what is objective..."This is a rather odd statement to make. Pro portrays my position as relativism, which eschews objectivism, yet also claims I am positing a standard for objectivity. This is a contradiction. Either I'm positing relativism or I'm positing objectivism. To be clear, I'm positing relativism, so I can't be presenting a "standard for what is objective..." Regardless I am not saying that people's agreement is the standard (as stated above). But I think this point bears clarification.Going back to Pro's R1:"Everyday we live we operate as if there are objectives in the world."Indeed, but we don't all agree on what those objectives are. There are many different models of epistemology, morality, and logic and, among them many different proposed candidates for objective standards. Since there can only be one God-given objective standard (one each for truth, morality, logic, etc.) that means that many of us are operating on a non-objective standard thinking it is objective.This means that, our mere behavior is not enough, in itself, to establish the existence of an objective standard. Yet we are able to communicate intelligibly (or apparently intelligibly) by agreeing on a standard to communicate concepts. I illustrated this with the example of language (if Pro doesn't think that language is a prerequisite for intelligibility, then I challenge him to present an intelligible argument in the comments without using language).Restated Argument:Pro states:"God is the only way for necessary preconditions for intelligibility exist. Therefore, if God doesn't exist then it is impossible for necessary preconditions for intelligibility to exist."While Pro has removed the inverse error, the argument from ignorance seems to remain; Pro's reason for asserting the first statement is because he cannot think of any alternatives.Burden of ProofPro: 'In formal logic, if one does not present an alternative option then a statement has simply been proved "non-true."'The issue of Pro's argument not being presented in a formal manner aside, I will accept this. Pro contends that his resolution: "God exists" is true. I contend that Pro has failed to prove it true. There was no burden placed upon me to prove a contrary statement.Conclusion:1. Pro failed to demonstrate that the questions asked of the universe were coherent.2. Pro failed to demonstrate why merely acting as if objective standards exist mean they exist.3. Pro failed to demonstrate why God is the only possibility for objective standards.Without these, Pro has failed to demonstrate his assertion that "God exists."