"Does God Exist," Redux - A-ThiestSocialist has failed to prove that God exists

Thank you for the challenge, hopefully we can have some fun with this. As for the name, notice the misspelling of "thiest" and the - between a and thiest. I'm going to refute my opponents points, while strengthening my own case as my outline for this argument, since my constructive has already been posted. Firstly, my reference to my beliefs dealing with the Bible and the Christian world view simply comply with my arguments. Not all of my arguments comply with other world views, so to argue against my world view one would have to go against the Christian world view. The debate itself isn't excluded to the Christian God as proving, however, I can not and will not prove the existence of another God, or be able to defend such attacks, that was the purpose of that clause. My proof: "I. The argument from abstract absolutes. 1. Abstract absolutes exist. 2. Abstract absolutes would still exist if man kind were to disappear. 3. Abstract absolutes existed before man. 4. Abstract absolutes can not have been created by man. 5. Something besides man must have created abstract absoultes. 6. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for these absolutes. 7. The only tangible cause of this is God." First to my opponents rebuttal to my argument regarding abstract absolutes. He neglected to provide the foreground of it, and partially misunderstood the argument and simply only looked at the line by line explanation. The argument comes down to the fact that with the atheist world view of matter in motion, all things that are not tangible have to have been human created or influenced, however abstract absolutes are not human created or influenced, thus the only explanation for this and the only possible way they can exist is in the theist world view. Tag 2 in the argument is actually essential, despite my opponents claims. Without 2, God isn't necessary, because then absolutes wouldn't be reliant a higher creator. Because of clause 2 standing, the argument itself stands. The idea that the argument is a fallacy is simply wrong. There can only be two world views, the atheist one, and the theist one. If something only complies with the theist world view, then the theist worldview stands. My opponent failed to prove that abstract absolutes can exist in a atheist world view, so despite his attempts to argue at the proof, the general claim stands because of his lack to prove otherwise. My opponent then proceeds to suggest that somehow I'm creating a cosmological argument. He simply shapes it into something else and distorts the argument. The premise is that it can't exist without God due to worldview analysis, not that everything has a creator. But let's pretend for a second that's what I'm arguing. There are two problems with his "proof." Claim 1 is absolutely true, but the key is thing. God is not tangible to us and is not a matter created substance, but also if God were proven, but a creator were necessary, then something would have to have created that creator, and it goes back infinitely, but the only solution to this is God. Next on the Transcendental argument. I thought the claims were pretty self explanatory, but I guess not. First and foremost, logic being perfect isn't simply an assertion, it's a form of an abstract universal. Secondly, if logic weren't conventional, then it's and absolute. By it not being conventional, and not contingent upon human existence, it again relates to abstract universals. Furthermore, the premise is that to argue God's existence pressupposes God's existence. If my opponent has a counter proof using a similar standpoint, I'll be more than happy to refute it. My opponents discontinuous claim against the first claim in the proof is illogical. He says that if God can be proved using logic, then logic is before God. That's like saying that if you can use a geiger counter to prove there is radiation somewhere, then that geiger counter is before God. A mechanism of proof does not necessarily predate the thing (or being) it's trying to prove. The argument is instead that because there is logic, there has to be a God. Finally, my last argument on morals. If my opponent read my argument correctly, then he'd understand that I am not saying atheists are evil, I am instead saying that an atheist has no moral backing without God. The argument consists of the idea that God's revelation of himself created morals and a moral code. With moral absolutes, this means that man could not have simply agreed upon a moral code, it instead points to something else. Without a God, there is no real way to say what is moral and what isn't without making morals conventional, but then absolute morals don't exist; however, absolute morals do exist, and thus the Christian worldview stands. My opponent proceeds to say morals arent' necessarily absoltue, however things such as genocide and murder in anger are wrong. Simply ask anyone, "Is it wrong for me to kill you, and take your wife?" The answer is yes, but people don't simply agree on things like this, it's just wrong. Furthermore, religions do teach a moral code, but this means nothing to the argument. It's still some kind of God, if it's Christian or not; the Christian worldview however sets it apart from all else. My opponent failed to truely analyze worldviews, and constantly said "there are other things or there's other explanations" however provided no such thing. Also, just because he proved any of my arguments false, he still provided no proof against God's existence.