Resolved: God exists

Main Argument:Before addressing my opponent's tangents, I wish to address what Pro called his "main argument."To restate:"Now, since something can't come out of nothing, we have to ask the question, where did the universe come from? I hold that God cannot not exist because otherwise the universe would not exist. He is an impossibility to the contrary." - Pro, R1My rebuttal to this was to note that our current models of the universe are insufficient to answer this question (they break down) and other models require the presumption of god (making the argument circular) and we don't even know of the question is coherent with regards to the universe (see references in R1). My opponent did not address the first two and has conceded the last.The only point to the rest of the argument is in support of the first, with respect to concluding that God is the answer to the question posed. However, the question has been rendered invalid, making the rest of the argument moot. Until Pro demonstrates that that the universe had a cause in time (which can only be the case if there exists a measure of time outside the universe) then everything else is academic and irrelevant.Even ignoring the above, Pro has not demonstrated why or how, the rest of his argument suppots his main point. Pro admits this:"Now, I will grant that I did not draw the connection between objective standard of logic, morality, and truth (necessary preconditions for intelligibility) as clearly as I should have so let me try to clarify." - Pro, R3First, we will address this clarification...Clarification of Supporting Arguments:My opponent's clarification can be summarized thusly:If God exists, then objective standards for logic, morality, and truth exist.Therefore, if God doesn't exist, then objective standards for logic, morality, and truth don't exist.This is fallacious, committing an "inverse error"[1]. Pro assumes that only god can provide for such objective standards citing only his ignorance of other possibilities which is also fallacious[2].I respectfully request a clarification that does not commit these errors.Tangential Odds and EndsI believe that R1 set the scope of the debate, and I do not think it appropriate to delve into other arguments for God or start breaking out into every god-related philosophical quandry. The Main Argument in R1 is what is at stake here and what Pro should defend. However, for the sake of argument I will address some of his issues, but I consider this to be outside the scope of the debate and for purely academic reasons:1. Definition of Relativism - I don't believe the dictionary is appropriate here. While it can provide a general description of relativism, relativism as a philosophical concept is much more. It is more appropriate described using the source I provided in R1. As such, portraying relativism as "made up" or "meaningless" are right out.2. Objectivism is the only intelligible answer - Pro contends that, without an objective standard (independent of individuals, cultures, the planet, and even the universe) we cannot discuss things meaningfully. This can be proved false via example. Take language. Language is not objective. All words are "made up." We can decide what words mean and even change their meaning. Yet this does not prevent communication. All of Pro's issues with logic, truth, and morality also apply to language. The objection being: why should anyone else adhere to a relative standard? And the answer is simple: because we agree to and that is the only way to obtain utility from it.We all agree to use (generally speaking) the same definitions of words, else we would not be able to communicate. Since we value communication, we have a vested interest in agreeing to a standard. The same is generally true of truth, morality, and logic. While agreement varies, it is only our agreement that binds us to any standard.3. Is Objectivism really the answer? - Pro cites objectivism as the solution, but it isn't. Since there are many logical, epistemological, and moral models that have been put forth as "objective" and since there is no agreement regarding which models are actually objective, the choice of model relies upon personal opinion. Thus, even if there exists an objective system, we don't know what it is and the end result is practical relativism anyway.4. No, I don't have to provide counter examples - Pro continues to insist that I provide alternatives for him to critique. This is not how debates work. Pro presented an argument and, while the presentation of counter examples is one way to disprove an argument, it is not the only way. Since pro did not stipulate that only counter-examples are valid forms of rebuttal, I will continue to critique his arguments as I see fit, which will include counter-examples at my discretion.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...