Resolved: God exists

I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. See, my opponent thinks I am talking about saying something is X relative to something else, and calling that relativism. That I am not doing. In my worldview (and we'll get to why in my worldview in just a second) that is a perfectly valid statement. "I was going 45 mph relative to the earth's surface" is valid. However, whenever you attach an "ism" to the end of a word it becomes a philosophical concept. When I speak of relativism I am talking about the philosophical theory of relativism defined by Merriam-webster as "the belief that different things are true, right, etc., for different people or at different times." (Source: Merriam-Webster online dictionary) See, relativism is a theory of epistemology. Now, I'd like to address something my opponent says near the end of his last post. He says "Pro delves into an epistemological argument that I think is off-topic." Now, I hope that my opponent is merely saying that I haven't made the connection, and not asserting that epistemology is irrelevant to the topic of God's existence at all. If so, this is a very serious error, since we need to know how we know what we know before we begin to talk about what we know (ontology) and what the purpose is for what we know (teleology). 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. Assuming God exists, and that he created everything, it would then follow that he created logic, morality and truth. Now, in regard to the God I am arguing for (the Christian God) these things flow out of him as part of his nature (and I can provide Bible verses to back that up upon request). Now, unless my opponent is willing to support relativism (the philosophical theory) we must have standard for logic, morality, and truth. These standards must be transcendent, otherwise they cannot apply to everyone (I hope my opponent sees this). In other words, they cannot be person-relative, culture-relative, planet-relative, or even universe-relative otherwise they are not objective. Thus, the only thing that can provide transcendent, objective standards is God, since he is the starting point for logic, morality, and truth. Those things are part of his character. He is transcendent, and thus provides the standard for those three things. So, in my worldview, I have standard for logic, morality, and truth. My argument regarding atheism is epistemological. What are your standards of logic, morality, and truth, and where do they come from? People? Culture? The majority? The people in power? The smartest people? Tradition? See, obviously I cannot respond to every possible attempt to provide standards in atheism, but I will provide answers to the ones I listed above. If my opponent has a different proposal, I ask him to make it clear so that it may be discussed. Let's assume culture provided the standards (henceforward when I say "the standards" I am referring to standard of logic, morality, and truth). What would obligate me to follow these standards? Why should I accept them? What if different cultures have different standards, which one is right? Why is that one right? Furthermore, this one, just like if I were to say that the majority provided the standards, violates the laws of logic that it is being claimed they provide by committing the ad populum fallacy. The people who claim that the standards are provided by the people in power or the smartest people both have the issue of them committing the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority" again violating the very laws of logic it is claimed they provide, and thus invalidating them as standards. The source of tradition simply commits chronological snobbery, thus again failing to provide the standards. Here is my assertion, in short. The only atheistic source for standards that I have listed that I have not yet discussed is individuals. My claim is that atheism ultimately falls in nihilism. All is person-relative. Truth, logic, and morality are just things we come up with in our minds. This is because atheism doesn't have a transcendent standard to provide, and the standard I have seen provided fail as I have shown above. Therefore, if we have no objective standards of morality, logic, and truth then it simply devolves into personal opinion. This renders all the sciences and logic meaningless, because there is no truth to be known. There is nothing but pure subjective opinion. And therein lies the problem with my opponent's last response. In his last post and throughout this debate round he has made assertions of science, truth, and logic but cannot in his worldview account for them. My worldview can account for things like logic, morality, and truth because we have a transcendent entity (God) who can provide them. Thus, when my opponent makes those assertions he is standing on the very ground he is trying to refute. This is a huge issue. My opponent needs God in order to disprove his existence. Even saying "God doesn't exist" requires that God exists, since it is a statement of truth that cannot be accounted for in atheism, but only in theism. Allow me to take just a little more time to attempt to demonstrate the problem's with atheism using an example. Suppose I decided one day that no one in the world existed but me, and suppose an theist tried to convince me otherwise. How could he do that? Could he say that my belief is untrue? No. See, in his worldview (as I have shown above) there is no such thing as objective truth, there is merely truth for him. Can he prove me logically wrong? No, because logic is person-relative in atheism. Can he say that by ignoring the existence of others I turning a blind eye to the evil in the world and thus I am immoral? No, because right and wrong are pure personal opinions in atheism. Atheism cannot answer the question of how we know what we know, and thus it cannot move on to discussing what is, because what is implies that there is something that exists outside of personal opinion, and atheism has already been shown to fail epistemologically. To sum it all up, in order to refute me, my opponent must borrow from my worldview. My "proof" for the existence of God is summed up best by one Christian apologist who said "The proof for the existence of God is that without him, you cannot prove anything." Why? Because there's nothing to be proven and no way to prove it if there was.