The existence of a supernatural God

After my opponent admitted that I was right about that sometimes the burden of proof falls on the atheist, he proceeded to respond to my arguments for God. Unfortunately, his responses contain mistakes that render them incapable of refuting my arguments, as I will explain below. I have summarized his arguments in bold. ARGUMENTS (1) My opponent said "We need art to survive." What proof is there for that?Sorry, I misspoke; I meant to say “We don’t need art to survive. That was what my entire argument expressed, that there is no proof that we need art to survive, as qopel said. Appreciation of art could be a bi-product of intelligence, which evolved for better survival. My opponent glosses over the important differences between two different kinds of intelligence, what I’ll call “concrete intelligence” and “abstract intelligence”. Concrete intelligence is intelligence that helps us survive. Abstract intelligence does not help us survive. Concrete intelligence, present in animals, could allow us to rely on past experiences to avoid danger, such as when an animal learns that if he messes with a certain creature, he will get injured, so he will not do that again, or it may allow us to employ memory of the past to guide us in directions where we will be met with Abstract intelligence helps us with moral issues, imagining the future, imagining hypothetical and things contrary to fact, solving mathematical equations, considering philosophical conundrums, creating narratives, forms of expression and articulation, and yes, art and beauty appreciation, activities which are light-years away from the simple reliance on past to avoid bad and go towards the good. Art appreciation could be a bi-product of abstract intelligence, but not concrete intelligence. And how could abstract intelligence have been a bi-product of concrete intelligence. As I explained, there is a clear and distinct difference between two. How do you bridge the gap between intelligence that is only used for survival and intelligence that is not used at all for survival? Where is the link? Since we cannot attribute appreciation of art (in abstract intelligence) to nature, my argument still stands that we must look to the supernatural. Not everything we have is for survival, appendixes are useless for survival.Appendixes may be useless for survival now, but they probably had survival use in the past. I recall my biology teacher explaining that the reason why we have appendixes is because our bodies used to need them to break down harder foods, back in the pre-historic age. So appendixes are not fundamentally useless, they are just temporarily useless. My argument about the fundamental uselessness of art and beauty for survival still stands. If it doesn’t come from nature and evolution, it comes from the divine. (2) Morality is also used for survival. We don't kill each other, for example, so our species has a better chance to survive. We are creatures that tend to help each other survive. There's nothing supernatural about that.Evolution is not based on “helping each other survive”. It is only based on the survival of ones own genes. Evolution is selfish, not in our unkindly sense of the word but in a purely technical sense, genes act only for their own survival, not for the survival of the species. [1] The models that evolutionists use explain altruistic behavior in animals always draws it back to animals doing what is best for their own genes, only by employing others. The problem is that these arguments do not cover obvious and widespread cases of humans acting in ways that do not ensure the survival of their own genes. And even in cases where selfish benefits are consistent with altruistic actions in humans, that does not mean that selfish benefits are the motivation behind these actions. Most humans, at some point, have done something kind for someone without expecting something in return from them. Also, not all morality is used for survival. A kind act may display morality but not have anything to do with the recipients survival. So, again, my argument stands that since moral behavior cannot be grounded in evolution, nature, or survival, we must transcend that and look the supernatural realm. (3) If I have free will, then an all knowing God can't exist!My opponent ignored my argument about free will and simply argued his own. I actually agree with his logic, but we never agreed to debate the existence of an “all-knowing God”, we agreed to debate the existence of a “supernatural God”. I for one do not believe that God knows the future, for doing so would be logically impossible. The future does not exist, so how could God know a truth that does not exist? Logical impossibilities are not said to fall under God’s power, so God not being able to see the future does not mean he is not all-knowing. But regardless, supernatural need not include all-knowing anyway. It only must include being beyond nature. That is what supernatural means. You can’t change the terms of a debate once it is started. Qopel refuted a God that I was not defending and did not agree to defend. His argument must be discarded and my argument for God remains untouched and hence still stands. CONCLUSION In his rebuttal first, my opponent glossed over important discussions in the nature of intelligence and hence rendered his argument invalid. In his second rebuttal, my opponent displays that he does not understand how evolution works and this undermines his argument. In his third rebuttal, my opponent did not address my argument, but only presented his own positive argument which was irrelevant to the debate. My arguments for God still stand. [1] Dawkins, Richard The Selfish Gene