God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

Ah, since I joined I wanted to debate you beem0r, so thx for accepting. So, let's begin. He begins his first negation speech by attacking the premise of the resolution. "~ 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. Response: God is a name, title and being. God, as everyone knows is the name Christians give their deity. Jews refer to their god as Yahweh, but they refer to him as God also in the old testament. Islam refers to their god as Allah, but in the Koran they use the word God and Allah interchangeably. As you can see God is the broad title for the creator of the universe. And as you have said I give evidence for "a" God, which still means God, since God can be used in many situations. His attacks: "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 still be something natural, such as a black hole from a parent universe. My Response: My opponent fails to see the point if this is his attack. The universe cannot come form the universe because then you are saying that the universe existed for an infinite amount of time. This is scientifically impossible for two reasons 1) Even in conceptual math, infinity leads to mathematically problems, and what is the universe dictated on: math and laws. 2) By saying it has been an infinity means temporal events cannot exist on the fact that for an event to have occurred then there needed to be a before effect, therefore never leading o the ultimate effect, which is after the present effect, which is now, me writing. My opponent then says the cause could have been natural. But something cannot come from nothing, meaning that natural cause had a cause, i.e.e leading back to my premise. "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." My Response: He is finally getting it, the universe needed a non-contingent cause, i.e. a metaphysical beginning. This statement is only affirming my position because as he puts it himself: "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." He is contradicting his first attack that the universe could have come from a preexisting universe. So now he says that without time, contingency and causation are meaningless. Good, then he is affirming the resolution that (a) God created the universe. 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? My Response: It's proven scientific fact, when the big-bang occurred all the elements were created in that moment. I think my opponent needs a science lesson. (Don't take offense, u seem like a nice guy) Big Bang: Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang. Quantum theory suggests that moments after the explosion at 10 -43 second, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force"(Wald). Elementary particles known as quarks begin to bond in trios, forming photons, positrons and neutrinos and were created along with their antiparticles. There are minuscule amounts of protons and neutrons at this stage; approximately 1 for every one billion photons, neutrinos or electrons. The density of the Universe in its first moment of life is thought to have been 1094g/cm3 with the majority of this being radiation. For each billion pairs of these heavy particles (hadrons) that were created, one was spared annihilation due to particle-antiparticle collisions. The remaining particles constitute the majority of our universe today . The universe at this point was an ionized plasma where matter and radiation were inseparable. Additionally there were equal amounts of particles and antiparticles. The ratio of neutrons and protons albeit small is equal. When the universe aged to one hundredth of a second old neutrons begin to decay on a massive scale. This allows for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles. Eventually the remaining neutrons combine with protons to form heavy hydrogen (deuterium). These deuterium nuclei combine in pairs and form helium nuclei. The formation of matter from energy is made possible by photons materializing into baryons and antibaryons with their subsequent annihilations transforming them into pure energy (Maffei). Because of these collisions and annihilations matter was unable to remain viable for more than a few nanoseconds before a bombardment of electrons would scatter these photons. Like water trapped inside a sponge, radiation is so dense (1014g/cm3) that no light is visible. Known as the "Epoch of Last Scattering" the temperature has now dropped to a mere 1013K with the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic interactions now able to exert their force. (Chown) As the gas cloud expands one full second after the initial explosion and the temperature of our Universe has dropped to ten billion degrees, photons no longer have the energy to disrupt the creation of matter as well as transform energy into matter. After three minutes and a temperature of one billion degrees, protons and neutrons were slowing down enough in order to allow nucleosynthesis to take place. Atomic nuclei of helium was produced as two protons and neutrons each bonded. For every helium nuclei formed there were about ten protons left over allowing for twenty-five percent of the Universe to be comprised of helium. The next important phase of the expansion occurred around thirty minutes later when the creation of photons increased through the annihilation of electron-positron pairs. The fact that the universe began with slightly more electrons than positrons has insured that our Universe was able to form the way it has. 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. My Response: He contradicted himself again. Th universe had a beginning, the big-bang. Its proven that preexistence is mathematically and scientifically impossible. Link back to resolve: Ladies and Gentleman, you can now affirm the resolution that God's (or if u want to be like my oppoent) 'a' God's exsistence can be proven indirectly.