Without God life has no meaning or value

Okay, as this is the second final round, I will take the time to summarize the ongoing debate before getting into my case. 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. His third claim, on god's authority on meaning in human life being a case of special pleading is ongoing, is ongoing. To counter this case, I have brought up creationism and asserted that God's surperiority (My opponent seems to concede this point as well.) justifies special pleading, as god, as a creator, creates humans for a purpose, and we exist to serve this purpose. My opponent does not seem to accept this. In round three, he says surperiority is not enough reason to justify special pleading. However, as he has not stated WHY surperiority is not a good enough justification of special pleading, he gives me nothing to refute, other than a few questions. Once I refute those questions, we can safely say the point is invalid until further notice. ===The Case=== Con concedes that for the purpose of this debate, God is our creator. Now, we must acknowledge that creation is done for a purpose. Now we, being objects of creation, exist for a reason, reason being that we must fulfill the reason we are created for. Hence, the analogy- Suppose I create a hammer. The hammer exists to preform the functions I designed it to preform. Con attempts to refute this by raising questions. He says "What if some one else users [Uses] the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose?" At this point, we must also take a third dimension into consideration. Level of consciousness (Or, as I have established before, God's surperiority.). As there is only one such entity in existence (We are following Christian theology), we must assume that I am the sole user capable of interacting with this hammer. This renders the hammer meaningless without my existence. Thus, my opponent's rebuttal can only be seen as spoken without full consideration of all the variables. 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. No offense intended, but my opponent seems a bit in over his head. He tries to maintain that humans have the same level of capabilities as God, when in reality, we could as well be simply figurines for god's amusement. Now that we have established God as having a surperior level of consicousness, we can easily deduce the many fallacies in Con's argument. Look back and (Using this analogy to make things easier to comprehend) replace "God", with "I", and replace "Person", with "Hammer". This ought to put some perspective into things, as we are comparable to tools when pitted against the surperior sentience of god. That being said, one can now easily see that Con's rebuttals are absurd, and his case is invalid. ===Conclusion=== As I have proven that God's level of surperiority mandates the right to give us meaning, and shown that Con's arguments were made in confusion, without proper consideration for all the variables, I sincerely urge a Pro Vote. Thank you.