Without God life has no meaning or value

I thank Con for a consistantly prompt reply. Okay, as this is the final round, I will take the time to summarize the ongoing debate before getting into my case. My opponent seemed to concede God's assumed existence, along with the bible being textually correct. He then objects to this claim in the final round, YET DOES NOT BOTHER TO SHOW WHY THE PREMISE IS INVALID. Therefore, as Con did not raise any objections to the premise, we can only assume that he concedes the argument. This renders his first two claims irrelevant. Con does not object to this also. His third claim, on god's authority on meaning in human life being a case of special pleading is ongoing. To counter this case, I have brought up creationism and asserted that God's surperiority (My opponent does not object to this point as well. ) justifies special pleading, as god, as a creator, creates humans for a purpose, and we exist to serve this purpose. My opponent does not seem to accept this. He says- "Rape is wrong. .. .. .. .. .. .but not for God cause God is superior. Something can't both exist and not exist (law of identity) , but not for God cause God is superior. Humans can't give meaning to life but God can, cause God is superior. (Insert argument/reason/principle here) but not for God cause God is superior. " This argument can be dismissed as irrelevant also. My opponent is attacking god in general, not my point in particular. As I have also justified WHY god has authority over meaning, we dismiss this point as invalid. My opponent also says- "No the thing that is RIDICULOUS is you using hammers to represent people. Hammers can't have any intent to do anything, but people can. " This is absurd. I don't know whether my opponent is purposely playing dumb to ignore my argument, because I think my opponent is intelligent enough to understand an ANALOGY. Yes, I have reduced the sentience level of a human to a hammer, but I have ALSO reduced the capacity of God to a person. This is to put things into perspective, it degrades both parties to common everyday entities we can understand. I'm saying, if god was represented by person, we'd be but a hammer to his capabilities. As we can both agree that hammers do not give other hammers meaning, we can safely conclude that god has authority over meaning. I would also like to correct Con's summary of my defenses. "Pro had tried to defend this position in the following ways 1) By making an argument over double standards vs special pleading (Which is an argument over terminology and doesn't address the core of the argument. )" No, I made an argument on the necessity of EQUALITY in both cases of special pleading and double standards. "2) By using a bad analogy where people (who have the ability to have intent) are represented as hammers (who don't have the ability to have intent)" This is justified as I have represented god (Who has abilities beyond our knowledge) with everyday human beings (Who's abilities are severely limited. ). "3) By making claims that I conceded various points when I had not done so. " As my opponent has not OBJECTED to any of my premises, we can only logically conclude that he concedes the point. I do not understand what my opponent expects of me, as I am not willing to argue for my opponent. "4) As far as their little personal remarks about being over my head, I will just let the argument speak for its self" My opponent then states that under my logic- "People can't give meaning to life, but Chuck Norris can, got a problem with this double standard ? well the Chuck Norris is superior. " The funny part is how my opponent likens Chuck Norris' abilities to that of God's. Which, as we all know, is absurd. Thank you.