God can't be proved by this universe

)Innate KnowledgeMy opponent has set up a strawman argument in an attempt to overcome my arguments. I never argued that animals obtain instinctive (innate) abilities through genetic information. What I argued is that animals obtain instinctive (innate) abilities without observation. They then exercise these abilities using a form of intelligence. This disproves my opponent's foundational claim that all intelligence is learned through observation. My opponent's primary argument takes form in the following syllogism. A) All intelligence is obtained through observationB) There was no intelligence prior to the creation of the universeC) Therefore no intelligence could be obtained prior to the creation of the universeMy demonstration of intelligence not learned through observation disproves A and therefore disproves C. My opponent then states "intelligence through nurture doesn't have to be within one generation. " This is irrelevant since it does not matter how the intelligence is obtained, if it is not obtained through observation my opponent's argument falls. The Uncaused CauseMy opponent misses an important aspect of my argument. It is clear that he has read the words, but it is equally clear that he has not understood them. God doesn't "need" a cause, because he is timeless. Cause and Effect is inseparably rooted in the Time/Space continuum. Since God (as posited by all monotheistic religions) is timeless, he is not bound by Caues and Effect. My opponent then writes "His justification that God is timeless but universe isn't isn't true because we don't know whether universe will ultimately end. " However, this reveals that he does not understand what the word "timeless" means. it appears that he thinks this means "unending" however, just because something is unending does not mean it is timeless. Since the universe had a beginning, and in fact is inseparable from Time (time is a fundamental "material" in the universe according to Hawkings and Einstein). Since it is fundamentally time-full rather than time-less, it cannot escape the laws of cause and effect. Evidence for GodMy opponent introduces a new argument into the debate. I shall not respond to it fully, rather I shall show why it is an irrelevant argument. My opponent's argument seeks to undermine the specifics of the Bible, rather than undermine God himself. Even if my opponent's argument succeeded, it still does not prove the resolution as God could exist regardless of the truth or untruth of the Christian Bible. Furthermore, his argument rests on probabilities of how the world will or will not end. Regardless of how probable or improbable it is, it is not impossible. In fact, if my opponent WERE to be correct about his overall argument he cannot know if Angels will "pop up" as this would be something that cannot be proved through knowledge of this universe which is the only type of knowledge my opponent asserts as valid. His argument is inherently self defeating. .. if it is right it is wrong, and if it is wrong, it is wrong. Ultimately, my opponent has continually asserted points based on faulty assumptions, unfounded propositions, and circular reasoning. I have dismantled each of his points through common sense logic, and my refutations have not been seriously challenged. I therefore urge you to vote Con, as my opponent has not proved the resolution true beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Thank you.