Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

I thank the con for the response, however he misses the point that I am laying out. It seems that we are not on the same page, so in order to clear that up I will clear up what my opponent sees as "contradictions" and then go from there. First my opponent take on a definition of "Absolute" however he fails to site a source, so lets look at the official definitions. "Absolute: 1. Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional; as, absolute authority, monarchy, sovereignty, an absolute promise or command; absolute power; an absolute monarch. 2. Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless; as, absolute perfection; absolute beauty. So absolute she seems, And in herself complete. --Milton. 3. Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; -- opposed to {relative} and {comparative}; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space. Note: Absolute rights and duties are such as pertain to man in a state of nature as contradistinguished from relative rights and duties, or such as pertain to him in his social relations." (source:http://define.com...) As you can see, there are multiple definitions of Absolute not just the one definition that the con has put out. In the TAG argument logic is absolute, but only in this absolute universe. "So which is it ? is logic absolute or isn't it ?" According to my definitions logic is absolute. However using con's definition I will say no, logic is not absolute it only ends at the absolute or unrestricted universe, and it only needs to go that far to prove TAG's argument because TAG stays up to our universe only not anywhere above. For all we know there could be other universes and other logics for those universes, that does not mean for their universe that logic is not absolute. "Actually you can't say that, you just stated that something existing, because it exists is is not a valid argument. If you had NOT raised this objection, you could of argued that, hey you believe that logic is self existent, well I believe that God is self existent, trouble is you already claimed that something being self existent should be rejected as invalid." I never said "that". If I am understanding correctly, it seems that my opponent has foolishly assumed that I said "since you said logic exist because they exist, I can say God exists because he exists" but that is not true. I ask that my opponent to look at my statement more carefully. There is an "If" in front of the statement making it conditional so if he goes on with his conjecture and say logic exist b/c they exist then I can say God exists b/c he exists. Also I had asked my opponent to prove that logic exist b/c they exist, but it seems that he agrees with me that "logic cannot simply exist on its own; it needs a creator" since he said strongly in his statement that I cannot use my conjecture which was a mimic of his. "According to Pros principles, it is quite correct to say that God does not exist......but does exist.........but doesn't. Pro must agree that this statement "God does not exist" is true, even if some one agrees that God exists, that person can then claim that God doesn't exist, and the obvious contradiction of God existing and God not existing does not apply, cause God is not subject to logic, so I say again, according to PROS argument, God does not exist.........funny I thought TAG was meant to prove that God does exist ?" So which is it, is something existing because it exists, should be regarded as invalid or not ? Again let's look at my statement from the top. Absolute logic stops at our absolute universe, therefore something is what it is and not what it is not is valid if that is what my opponent means, but "something existing because it exists" was never valid in the first place. Remember that my opponent himself have said strongly that this is not true otherwise my statement God exists because he exists would also be valid, thus ending the case. "According to Pros principles, it is quite correct to say that God does not exist......but does exist.........but doesn't. Pro must agree that this statement "God does not exist" is true, even if some one agrees that God exists, that person can then claim that God doesn't exist, and the obvious contradiction of God existing and God not existing does not apply, cause God is not subject to logic, so I say again, according to PROS argument, God does not exist.........funny I thought TAG was meant to prove that God does exist ?" But at the same time my opponent must agree that my statement "God exist" is true or it could be something in between therefore making these two statements false. My point was that we cannot prove God's existence just by looking at God alone, we have to look at His creation: logic. Now I will refine my argument and then reason with con's argument (if I have enough room) My argument is the same as above (TAG) and it does not mater whether or not logic is absolute, so long as logic is absolute in the absolute universe. Also, we cannot prove God's existence just by looking at God so we have to look at his creation: logic to know that he exists. This does not bind God to logic, if so I ask my opponent to provide the proof, which brings me to my next point: my opponent has not proved any of his points yet. If a debater cannot back up his/her statements with proofs, then the statement is invalid, so I ask my opponent to please prove all of his statements with valid reasons. Lastly (this is the most important one) my opponent still has not given a better reason as to why this absolute transcendental logic exists; He only has been pointing at the first part of the seven part thesis of TAG. Furthermore he as blown off his first reason that "logic exists because it exists" and agrees with me that this is invalid. I look forward to your response. Finally a Little Bone to Pick with my Opponent's last comment "It should be fun watching Pro dig them self out of the hole they have made," Illegalcombatant, keep this comment to yourself. No one wants to hear insults nevertheless get insulted. Though we are sitting back at our computers manners apply online as offline. Whether this is true or not, it is very rude to expose that to your opponent. And also saying it will be fun to watch me struggle? (Are you a sadist?) You lose with grace and win with grace as well. Even if you are not Christian, in society we have morals, so please treat others as you want to be treated. Thank You.