"Does God Exist," Redux - A-ThiestSocialist has failed to prove that God exists

Since I have a LOT to respond to (admittedly) I'm going to try and keep this as easy to follow as possible. Thank you for an excellent debate! First, the definition for the atheist world view essentially stands. It's origins are epistemologically based on naturalism and atheist views of creation and accountability for humanity. It's important in the debate because it's the formulation of atheist existence and creation. My arguments are all about world view perspectives and analysis. My roots for that definition go to many read debates, but I would pinpoint it to Hume, but continued to Russell. These two seem like credible enough atheists for me to give them association to my arguments. Also, the idea that a "physicist" is necessary to have philosophical credibility is preposterous. "But whether or not the definition of the atheistic "world view" is correct is really a trivial matter; again, the topic of the discussion is the validity of a specific set of arguments. I am not required to show valid alternatives in order to show those arguments invalid; an invalid argument is an invalid argument, whether or not a valid alternative has been shown to exist." I'll admit that in this debate I'm in a disadvantage. You're taking arguments I made and simply attacking them, but not giving me anything to attack. Instead of debating a topic using arguments, we're debating my arguments, using again my arguments. This doesn't necessarily harm me in the end however. The topic of discussion is the validity of my arguments, and we both agree. The essential difference is we aren't debating a Rogerian claim, we're debating the sub categories in the warrant, but even more restricted. This has to be considered in that my defense for certain claims will refute plausible alternatives, and show why my alternative is right, since that is the only way to defend the arguments in this context. (this next argument deals with his next 3 paragraphs on intangibles) My opponent says I give no evidence to the reasoning behind my logic of atheist unaccountability for abstract absolutes and non-human created intangibles. Ignoring the previous posts I've proposed, and the logic proofs I've shown this is true, but for the sake of clarity I will explain. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for anything that is not human created, or made of matter. In my proof, I demonstrated how abstract absolutes such as the laws of science are not simply matter, but are not human created. Since a law of science does not conform to this world view, the world view stands. Using simply logic and process of elimination, the only other world view, the theistic world view stands. Next, my opponent again misinterprets my argument. He paints it that I'm saying atheists don't believe in intangibles. I'm not at all saying that. What I'm saying is that the atheist worldview cannot account for their existence, and their epistemological foundation cannot allow for their existence. Their personal beliefs in their existence is irrelevent. The relevance is in their applicability toward their world view. Your examples of intangibles ironically are all made up of matter or human created, so I won't hold those examples. I will simply use things such as laws of physics or laws of nature. Next, the alleged assertion is simply an explicit definition of a naturalist atheist point of view. The definition previously has been proven as standing, so the next paragraph is void. My opponent asks for examples of intangibles that man did not CREATE or are not of matter. The key word is create, and not discover. Laws of physics, chemistry, science, logic, absolute morality, the law of non contradiction, the list goes on. Last time I checked most of us believed in physics and a few others, although absolute morality is questionable in this debate. Next, my purpose in explaining the impossibility of the contrary isn't circular at all. The premise is not the same as the conclusion. The atheist world view cannot account for these absolutes and intangibles. The premise is that all things are not created, but founded on either humans or matter. The intangibles do not comply with the world view. It's not a question of creation its' a question of compatibility. The world view cannot account for them, whereas the theistic one can. Next, you say that the argument on all things requiring a creator is flawed. Despite the fact that I have explained this, I answered your questions on God, and said that things require creators. I then explained how the only way this is possible is God, and that God is infinite. (See Spinoza) "Do you honestly not see the problem with this? The statement that "for logic to exist, God has to exist" is a COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION. It does not logically follow from any accepted assumption or fact which has been previously presented. Note that I would be JUST as justified (which is to say, not at all) in arguing that "for logic to exist, God can't exist, since God is a bundle of logical contradictions - therefore God doesn't exist!"" The "unsupported assertion" is derived from the original argument of intangibles. If you read my proof, which you did, I referenced that the arguments are similar. Logic is an abstract absolute that is intangible. It follows under that logic cannot exist in the atheist world view, so to use logic requires that you are dismissing the atheist world view altogether. Shockingly enough, you either misunderstood or misrepresented my argument. Finally on the argument of morals, my opponent says there are not absolute morals. With morals there are two solutions. I will explain this further in a little. He failed to respond to the fact that thing such as genocide are not conventional, they are contrary to absolute morals. Other examples include cold blooded murder, rape of the innocent, things such as this. These are all absolute morals, and the only way they could be absolute is if God existed. Now onto the two solutions. There are only two ways to explain morals: absolute, or conventional. The absolute morals obviously simply point that morals are absolute. But if morals are conventional, what does that mean. One would say, morals aren't absolute, everyone has their own morals. The problem with this rationalist (philosophical belief, not thought process reference)belief is that Kant and Spinoza (and later Van Til) showed the flaw in that statement. If everyone had their own morals, that's an absolute. It's disproving absolute morals by establishing a system of absolute morals. They are personal and different, but absolute nonetheless. It's like saying there are NO absolutes. Well, that's an absolute. The arguments as a whole hold. I have further clarified and refuted any of my opponents problems. Any lack of logic he claims I have can easily be found in the proofs. (See the previous debate) They are logical, and true. His main problems, which are with the whole absolute argument and intangible argument are rooted on a misunderstanding of the argument, and he misconstrues the argument, which proceeds to refute and hold against me even though his portrayal is incorrect. My opponents main argument against my main point was that I had no examples of abstract absolutes and intangible absolutes, however I previously showed that things such as Newton's laws are abstract absolutes not CREATED by humans, or consisting of mater. I held to his main criteria that he found impossible to hold to, and this weighs heavily towards my side. Please note: the first argument is the basis of the other two, they are simply logical extensions to further add ground. Also, since all my arguments hold, I have won this debate, but also, even if you believe not all my arguments, but some, or even one hold in this debate, God is proven, and I win. Thank you again for this debate, and I am more than happy to debate on the original resolution of God's existence.