Without God life has no meaning or value

Pro says "My opponent seems to concede God's assumed existence, along with the bible being textually correct. This renders his first two claims irrelevant. Con concedes this also. " Pro also says "Con concedes that for the purpose of this debate, God is our creator. " Don't mistake silence as agreement and don't mistake some one granting a premise as true, in order to show the argument faulty as the same as granting that the premise is true. Consider this argument. .. . Person 1: I don't exist Person 2: Okey you don't exist, but if you didn't exist then you couldn't claim you don't exist (showing the argument is flawed) Person 1: Oh see, you concede that I don't exist Person 2: "shakes head" Pro says "However, as he has not stated WHY superiority is not a good enough justification of special pleading, he gives me nothing to refute" 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 is just bad reasoning and bad theology. If you can pick and choose what reasons can and can't apply to God, then God just becomes what ever you want. Pro says "we must assume that I am the sole user capable of interacting with this hammer. This renders the hammer meaningless without my existence" This was clearly refuted in my previous argument, hammers can't use other hammers, but people can use other people. Pro says "Ergo, we can establish that Con's conclusion- Pro wants us to grant that God using a person gives meaning to life, but that a person using a person does not result in meaning to life. is as ridiculous as saying that a hammer can give another hammer meaning. " Pro also says "This ought to put some perspective into things, as we are comparable to tools when pitted against the superior sentience of god. " 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. So If God does something with intent (like creating a universe), it gives it purpose, but if humans do something with intent, like living, its doesn't have a purpose. Well you know the drill by now. .. .. Argument something something, doesn't apply to God cause God is superior. Pro does not accept that If God can give meaning, then so can people. Pro has sought to justify this special pleading that God being "superior" justifies this breaking of the rule. 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. ) 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) 3) By making claims that I conceded various points when I had not done so. 4) As far as their little personal remarks about being over my head, I will just let the argument speak for its self. Either, God can giving meaning to life, and people can give meaning to life, or people can't give meaning to life, and God can't give meaning to life. Pro has not been able justify the two different standards applied in their argument. As such the resolution "Without God life has no meaning or value" is shown false. If Pro still wants to defend this double standard (and I use this in the general sense of how the term is used in everyday language) then I present Pro this argument. .. .. .. .. .. . People can't give meaning to life, but Chuck Norris can, got a problem with this double standard ? well the Chuck Norris is superior.