Resolved: God exists

Now, I'll go through and respond to my opponent's arguments one by one, starting with his rebuttal of my subpoint 1. I agree that outside of the universe time has no meaning. However, unless my opponent is suggesting that the universe is eternal here (which is defeated by the second law of thermodynamics) then I'm not sure what he's referring to. If the universe isn't eternal at some point it began, and with it time. Therefore, the argument goes like this. Premise 1: Something exists. Premise 2: That something must have had a beginning. Premise 3: The something could not come from nothing. Premise 4: The something did not come from eternal matter. Conclusion: That something must have come from a spaceless, timeless, self-sufficient being. Now of course the conclusion above does not prove God, rather just an entity, I suppose one can label as God. My second point proves God. HIs argument against subpoint 2.1 asks whether the statement that the creator is superior to the creation is true. I would ask him to provide a reason how it is logically possible for God (assuming he exists) to create something greater then himself. Whatever he creates will be a creature, and thus inferior to him. His argument against subpoint 2.2 assumes that I am trying to show how the option of eternal matter ends up becoming God. However, that is not the case. I am merely trying to show why it results in a God-esque type entity. I then say that it couldn't be matter because of my second point, and that is where we will have the most contention, I think. Rebuttal to the Rebuttal of Point 2: Necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Now, I'm not sure if my opponent just doesn't know what necessary preconditions for intelligibility are, or if he's just acting like he doesn't know. Unless he is supporting total relativism (which is hinted at in several places, but not strongly enough to be able to say that is what he is supporting) then he has failed to provide alternative objective standards for logic, morality, and truth. His first argument assumes that a "hallmark of maturity and development is that we adjust our manner of behavior to conform to the realities of our environment. " Though I agree, I hold the position that in the atheistic worldview, this statement is just opinion. What objective standard of truth is he appealing to to prove this point? He hasn't provided it. He then talks about implicit frameworks (opening with a "Pro ignores," as if ignoring an idea was wrong, without of course providing a standard for why it's wrong). And here my opponent completely misuses the terms "relative" and "objective. " Objectively speaking, in the example he gave, you were going X miles per hour relative to the earth's surface. My opponent, I'm sure, would agree. But in his worldview, how fast you were going is up to you. And, if you think you were going Y mph instead of X mph then you are right. If the cop thinks you were going Z mph instead of Y or X mph he is right! Without an objective standard for truth, which my opponent hasn't provided in his worldview, this entire debate is futile. My opponent then claims, in his third point that I am "utterly false" in an assertion that I make. I want to ask, by what standard? According to you? My opponent? "Relative statements are completely valid and meaningful within said framework. " According to who? By what standard of meaning and validity? And, if my opponent says logic, then by what standard of logic? See, my opponent doesn't understand what I'm getting at here. I'm asking an epistemological (how do we know what we know? ) question here. What are the objective standards my opponent appeals to in his rebuttal? He appeals to logic, he appeals to truth. But by what standard do we judge these things. I contend that in the atheist worldview, there are no such standards, and thus, in the atheist worldview knowledge is impossible since knowledge requires the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. If my opponent says that we determine truth by what is logical, then how do we know what is logical? Who judges when something is logical? A bunch of people? So the majority determines truth? What majority then? What obligates me to accept their determination. If my opponent says the scientific method determines truth, then he is talking in circles since the scientific method relies on several truths (including the truth of itself) to reach any conclusion. In my opponent's worldview, Nietzche was right. All is meaningless. Knowledge is futile. Only in the theistic worldview, where we have a transcendent, objective standard for those things (God) is knowledge possible. By appealing to logic and truth in my his arguments my opponent was borrowing from theism to support his side. He was borrowing necessary preconditions for intelligibility from theism in order for his side to even function. My opponent must provide standard for logic, morality and truth, or all his statements here or in the future devolve into pure opinion.