The Christian God VS Everyone else: Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology.

This debate started with several weeks worth of back and forth comments on this Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com... And we both decided to move it here to make it easier for ourselves to explain our arguments. It is mainly about the validity of the Christian world view, and the impossibility of all other world views, including the one my opponent holds, atheism. Proving the Existence of the Christian God, which is a very important topic considering the implications. The main topics are Morality, Logic & Reason and Epistemology. MORALITY The God of the Bible exists and this why and how universal moral absolutes exist. My opponent argues that morality is a convention among men, not unlike the rules of grammar. This means that morality is culturally relative, and arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary, he has no real basis for defining something as good or evil to create this conventional standard to begin with. And since, it's culturally relative, He has no valid reason to condemn the culture of the Nazi society. Now Im not arguing that my opponent or any non-believer lack moral values, Im arguing that they can't account for morality and that they are actually assuming the Christian worldview when they appeal to moral standards to condemn any evil act. The Christian worldview, on the other hand, comports with the reality that universal moral absolutes exist. The Christian claims that God is is the necessary precondition for moral absolutes to exist. He's also brought up the infamous Euthyphro Dilemma. I maintain that it's not a dilemma at all. God's very nature is the standard of morals. God is perfectly good, everything He says and does are good and everything else that contradicts his nature is automatically evil. Godlessness is evil. LOGIC & REASON Similar to his version of morality, my opponent also holds the position that the laws of logic are products of the human mind, and are conventional. He claims that the laws of logic are not absolute but instead, are also conventional, or agreed upon. This of course causes many problems. For example, how do we conclude that the produced system of logic is indeed logical? I hold the position that the laws of logic are universal and absolute. This is why and how we can go on this website and debate who is logical, who is reasonable, who is right, etc. No one here will be saying, "well im using a different set of laws of thought, so your arguments do not apply" Universal Absolutes exist. Agreeing or disagreeing with that statement proves that the laws of logic are absolute. I also disagree with the claim that they are the products of human minds. This becomes a circular, self refuting argument as we shall see. EPISTEMOLOGY My opponent stated that we gain knowledge by experience and observations. But of course you would need proper logic and reason to make conclusions and convert experiences and observations to actual knowledge. However, this proves to be a vicious circle. If we follow the logical conclusion of this world view, it would mean that, we gain knowledge by experience and observation, using the laws of logic, which our minds produced by experience and observation, using the laws of logic, which our minds produced by experience and observation... My epistemology is simple, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" -Proverbs 1:7. Logic existed before human minds were able to express them. "In the beginning was LOGOS" -John 1:1 (one of Jesus' many names was "the word" or "logos" which is where we get the word logic) We know everything else by knowing who we are, and we know who we are by knowing who God is and our relationship with him, namely, creator-creature. This is what "self awareness" is. The laws of logic are not products of the human mind. The laws of logic would exist even if no human mind existed. The universe was not illogical before the alleged evolution of the thinking man. They are the most basic laws the govern reality itself. The laws of logic existed and applied to our universe before Aristotle's parents did the nasty. We did not and we can't possibly produce the laws of logic, saying so would be circular argument. We "discovered" these laws. But how can we discover the laws of logic and make any sense of them without having logic to begin with? The answer is we can not and we did not. They were revealed to us. We believed, and we based everything on these ultimate axioms. "Credo ut intelligam" as Anselm said, which means I believe in order that I may understand. "Fides praecadit intellectum" or faith precedes knowledge. You see, both the Christian and the non-believer presuppose that the laws of logic are true. The difference is the Christian can account for them, without committing logical fallacies. The Christian's ultimate authority is God, while the non-believer's ultimate authority is himself, making himself his own God.