God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

Alright folks. First my opponent claims I have contradicted myself with my 2 premises, but this is nonsense, and I will show you why. My opponent is claiming that it can be proven that god exists. For this to be true, no other possibilities could exist. My opponent's sole point he has held on to for why there must be a god is that one must have caused a universe. However, I have provided 2 other possibilities that could potentially explain the existence of a universe without invoking a god. Thus, if these points are valid, I have shown that a god cannot be proven, since other possibilities exist. Now, to respond to the claim that my premises "contradict". This is true insofar as they say different things and they cannot both be true. However, I am simply saying that they are both POSSIBILITIES. Consider: Person 1: I can prove that it's Tuesday. Person 2: No you can't, since it could be Monday or Wednesday. Yes, Monday and Wednesday are both different cases altogether. However, person 2 has not contradicted himself, since he never claimed that both were true, only that one or the other MIGHT be true. Now, on to defending my 2 possible explanations for the 'cause' of the universe that do not require a god. 1. The universe might not require a cause. Consider when the universe began. At this point, time did not exist. Time, as the other dimensions, was created at this moment. Until this point, time did not exist, and so causation may not have existed, either. Since the big bang happened before time existed [since it created time], it therefore might not require a cause. 2. The universe may have been the by-product of a universe that did not require a cause. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that if there are multiple universes, they do not necessarily have the same rules [fundamental forces and other fundamental properties included]. Thus, even if our universe did have a cause, there may be a universe somewhere down the chain that did not have a cause, due to not having that fundamental property. Our universe in this case would have come from a black hole in another universe. This universe would either have come from another black hole, or would be the one to not require a cause. Thus, the chain ends somewhere. And now, just because I can, I will bring forth another possibility. 3. There has been an infinite chain of causes. [this could be an infinite number of universes coming from black holes in other universes, etc.] In this case, there is no 'first' cause. My opponent says that "He says an infinite amount of universes are here. Thats impossible. All mathematicians know its impossible to have an actual infinite. Keep that in mind." Now keep in mind that I never before now claimed there was an infinite chain of universes, as I cleared up for you in possibility #2. However, just because I can, I will tell you why my opponewnt is wrong here. "Actual" infinities can indeed exist. How many different numbers are there between 0 and 1? Infinite. How many moments were there between yesterday and right now? Infinite [this is arguable]. Infinite cannot be discounted as impossible. The only grounds for saying an actual physical thing [like number of universes] can't be infinite is that 'we've never seen that many.' That would be because A> we've never seen other universes, and B> we cannot perceive an infinite number of things. You can't say infinite amounts of things is impossible just because we've never seen it. We've never seen supernatural beings either, yet those are still possible. Isn't god, by most definitions, infinite? Kind of hurts my opponent's case to say infinites are definitively impossible. So let us recap. There are 4 possibilities for the cause of the universe. 1. It is a god. 2. It is nothing [no cause]. 3. It is another universe that did not require a cause due to different fundamental properties. 4. It is an infinite chain of universes. Now you might not accept some of these as possibilities [probably #4, if any]. That's OK. As long #1 is not the only possibility, my opponent has failed to show how it can be PROVEN that a god exists. In me giving other possibilities, I have directly negated the resolution, since one cannot prove a thing unless there are no other possibilities. I have shown that the existence of god cannot be proven. I am not saying it's not true, and I'm not saying it can be disproven, but it cannot be proven, since there are other possibilities that cannot be discounted. Also, keep in mind that my opponent is arguing that he can prove the existence of something infinite [god] yet he has claimed that infinite is impossible. And keep in mind that I could have pursued the God vs. A god argument [which is not invalid], but I decided not to. The fate of this debate now rests in your sometimes-capable hands.