Resolved: God exists

The beginning of the universe.Pro contends that I must make, and prove, a definitive conclusion regarding the origin and make-up of the universe. I disagree. All I have to do is show that Pros' conclusions do not hold, either by demonstrating some invalidity of his argument, the falsity (or unknown truth) of any of the premises or both. In demonstrating Pro's argument as false (or, at least, not demonstrated as true) it is not required of me to posit and prove an alternative scenario.This is important since my rebuttal of Pro's arguments are that: A) accepted scientific models of the universe break down, preventing any conclusions about its origins from being made; and B) questions of its origins may be meaningless to begin with.This means that Pro's premises 2, 3, and 4 are not known to be true as far as the concern the universe as a whole.SuperioritySince I do not know what it means for some entity to be inferior or superior to another entity, I cannot meet Pro's demand. And, to repeat, while counter-examples is one way of refuting an argument, in this case it is simply sufficient for me to note that Pro's assertion is bare and without support. As it is, measurements of "superiority" and "inferiority" require some sort of criteria by which we can judge.Necessary Preconditions of IntelligibilityAdmittedly, this was the first time I've heard of this phrase. I began to do some research into it before realizing that it's not my job to find support for Pro's assertions: it's Pro's job. Regardless, as far as I can tell, all statements of god providing for the necessary preconditions of intelligibility are simply bare assertions without support.RelativityPro consistently misrepresents what relativism is."Objectively speaking, in the example he gave, you were going X miles per hour relative to the earth's surface."No, relatively speaking. X miles per hour relative to the Earth's surface is a relative statement. It's right there!"But in his worldview, how fast you were going is up to you."This is Pro's primary sin with regards to relativism: he thinks it is synonymous with "made up." That, relative frameworks mean we are free to say anything and everything is true and there is no basis for saying anything is wrong. This is a horrible assessment of relativism.In a nutshell, all relativism means is that, when asserting a truth, a framework must be provided. (Whether this is for all truths or merely some is depends on how strong or weak the relativism is; references in the previous round).My example was not an example of relative truth, but rather an example of relative motion; I was using an analogy. "45 mph" is not a meaningful statement to make in physics without a frame of reference. That reference can be implicit and widely understood, but it must be there. Likewise, for relative truths, some logical framework must exist.Pro says:"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?"The answer to this is simply: by the established and agreed upon definitions of the words.TangentsPro delves into an epistemological argument that I think is off topic. I will reserve any rebuttals until Pro can demonstrates how this relates to the argument at hand ("God exists.") Pro seems to simply want an outlet to bash his perception of atheistic worldviews, but that is not the purpose of this debate. To summarize:1. Pro has made claims about the universe that are not only unsupported, but completely unsupportable without a complete model of the universe which doesn't exist.2. Pro has claimed that the "preconditions for intelligibility" somehow prove that the universe was created by a god, but this connection has not been established. Furthermore, these preconditions are based upon a misunderstanding of relativism.Rather than refute my statements, or resupport his arguments, it seems that Pro has simply repeated himself.