Resolved: God exists

Pro starts the ball rolling by proposing, as requirements, the following three statements: Statement 1 - Law of Non-contradiction Statement 2 - Ex nihilo nihil fit Statement 3 - Something Exists ...as a condition of accepting the debate. I accept these conditions. Now to the argument. Main Argument Point 1 - Impossibility to the Contrary Sub-point 1 - The universe couldn't have come from nothing, so it must have come from something. From statement 2, the first half of this claim is evident. But what of the second half? Not necessarily. Or, at least, not demonstrated. The statement presumes that the universe "came" from something, at some time. It is not known if this is true. From a scientific standpoint, our current models break down if we rewind the clock far enough[1]. Furthermore, some scientists have even suggested that time has no meaning outside the universe[2]. Since the question of the universe "coming" from something implies a temporal framework outside of the universe, the very question may be incoherent. Moving outside of the realm of science would require the assumption of some form of theology or creation myth, which is the very thing in question, and would be circular. Sub-point 2 - The timeless, spaceless, immaterial entity Sub-point 2 presumes the validity of sub-point 1. Since that has been called into question, anything that rests upon it is equally called into question. However, there are a few questions and concerns I have regarding statements made that would be questionable even given the validity of sub-point 1. Sub-sub-point 2.1 - Ontological superiority? Pro states: "Now, the creator (be it matter or God) is always superior than the creation. It has to be by definition." This is offered without support or reference. I'm not aware of this definition or why this would have to be the case and Pro has offered no frame of reference by which we could measure this. I reject this bare assertion until such a time as Pro provides a reason to accept it. Sub-sub-point 2.2 - Sounds like God? Pro states: "This is starting to sound a little bit like God." Pro is attempting to assert the existence of god by positing the existence of something which, presumably, has the same attributes as god. Now, I will concede that, if two entities - A and B - have completely identical attributes then they are logically identical. However, Pro has failed to provide an exhausted list of what attributes define "god." I assume there are more than three (self-existent, timeless, spaceless, superior). Alternatively, Pro could demonstrate that only god could have those attributes. In fact, Pro implies he will do that "The reason is that God is the only thing that provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility." Let's see. Point 2 - Necessary Preconditions for Intelligibility Sub-point 1 - Objective truth Sub-point 2 - Objective logic Sup-point 3 - Objective morality Each of these make similar arguments, simply swapping "truth" for "logic" for "morality." Therefore they all commit the same errors and suffer the same rebuttals. Firstly, that we act a certain way does not indicate the truth of any assumptions inherent in that manner of acting. Indeed, the hallmark of maturity and development is that we adjust our manner of behavior to conform to the realities of our environment, which presumes an initial disconnect. I certainly don't assume that reality conforms to my preconceptions. Does Pro? Second, Pro ignores the very idea of implicit frameworks. Indeed, we do "operate as if there are objectives" but that is merely a matter of convenience. If a cop asks you how fast you were going, you will provide an objective, absolute measurement in miles-per-hour (or kph). While stated as an absolute, it is still relative (to the Earth's surface). Much of what we do depends on implicit relative frameworks such as these, almost to the point that we forget they are there. This is a matter of convenience, not a matter of truth. Third, Pro implies that the only objective statements that can be made are those that are objective. This is utterly false. Relative statements are only meaningless if you fail to produce a framework. Relative statements are completely valid and meaningful within said framework. In fact, that is the very essence of relative philosophies: that statements are meaningless without a relative framework against which you can judge their truth or falsehood[3]. Overall Refutation Finally, the second point fails to support the first. Our instinctive tendencies toward behaving as if absolutes exist does not (as far as I can tell) support the notion that only god can be timeless, spaceless, and superior. This is a non sequitor. [1] - "[T]he presently understood laws of physics may be expected to break down on the Planck scale, and our standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times..." (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...) [2] - "To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question..." (http://www.hawking.org.uk...) [3] - "We also distinguish descriptive and normative versions of relativism and see that normative relativism has two faces, an anti-realist face (there are no framework-independent facts of certain sorts) and a realist face (but there are framework-dependent facts of those sorts)." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)