God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

Let us first examine the wording of the resolution: "God's existence can be proven through indirect means." I would point out that this is very distinct from the statement "_A_ god's existence can be proven through indirect means." "God" can either be a name or a title. A name would be like "Bryan," my own name. A title would be like "student." Now let us determine which meaning of "God" is implied in the resolution. "Bryan's existence can be proven through indirect means." - This makes sense. "Student's existence can be proven through indirect means." - This does not. Thus, we can assume that God here refers to the supposed being who is called by the name "God," which is either the Christian god or some other specific god. To stress the point, consider an agnostic Deist, one who believes that a god exists, but does not claim to know anything about him. This person could accurately state that he believes in the existence of a god, but he would be lying to say he believes in the existence of God. My opponent has not offered any arguments to indirectly prove the existence of God. He has merely provided arguments that attempt to indirectly prove the existence of _A_ god. And I therefore negate on the basis that we have no evidence, indirect or direct, to suggest the nature of anything supernatural, including a god, so we cannot say a specific god, such as 'God,' can be indirectly proven to exist. In any event, I will now point out the flaws in my opponents arguments, even though it be unnecessary. 1st Syllogism: "The universe began to exist" may not be true. It could have always existed in one form or another. Even if "the universe has a cause," this cause can stil be something natural, such as a black hole from a parent universe. 2nd Syllogism: Perhaps the beginning of the universe was not contingent. Keep in mind that time only began with the beginning of the universe, as time is but a dimension thereof. And without time, contingency and causation are meaningless. Argument from Cosmology: My opponent is wildly inferring unknown details. "When the Big-Bang occurred all the natural elements possible for its surivial where created." What? Since when do we know anything like that? 3rd syllogism: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." That's an unbased assumption. Our universe could have come from a black hole in another universe. That universe, or some other universe down the chain, may not require a cause, as each universe might have different laws. I have given an explanation that isn't God AND assumes that our universe requires a cause, so the above statement is false. Even so, I already showed that the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause. Argument of motion: The same argument, different wording. All this argues is that there has to be some actuality that never was just a potentiality. This could very well be our own universe, or some universe from which ours was spawned. Argument from necessity: Once again, this is the same argument reworded. It basically states that everything we see at one time didn't exist. However, it does not eliminate the possiblity of something natural always having existed, whether it be the fabric of our own universe or another that spawned it. Argument from design: This argument is very lame, and has been addressed >9000 times. Things like the eye have been shown to evolve naturally from something more simple. This chain continues, all things complex usually tracing their roots to something less complex. This could also be true of the universe, which oddly enough, started out as the least complex thing possible - a singularity. My opponent assumes that our universe needs a creator, even though it started out as the most simple thing imaginable. And yet he insists that this "God" does not require to be created, even though he would show signs of boundless complexity. Last Syllogism: "1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. 2. The universe resembles human artifacts. 3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design." Alright, here we go. 1. Light bulbs are a product of intelligent design. 2. Pears resemble light bulbs. 3. Therefore pears are a product of intelligent design. ... Or, it's just a coincidence that there is resemblance between them. Things are not always what they seem, we cannot assume that since "The universe resembles human artifacts" it is therefore caused by some intelligence. Also, what's the basis of saying that "The universe resembles human artifacts?" That's an unsupported premise, and it's not something universally agreed upon. Alright, so I've shown at least one problem with each of the arguments my opponent brings to the table. His arguments are proof of nothing, since his premises are not themselves proven. Also, consider my opening argument: None of my opponent's arguments show that "God" exists, and I've even shown now that they don't prove that "a god" exists.