Arguing for the existence of God is akin to arguing that two and two make five.

I believe, Tatarize, that it is your argument which is fallacious. My opponent has failed to address the main point of my argument: these two debates, the god debate and the math debate, are totally disparate, since one is provable and the other is not. It is PROVABLE that two and two are four. Wouldn't you agree? It is , however, impossible to prove that God exists, and it is impossible to disprove it. THEREFORE, these two arguments are ENTIRELY disparate: not only in subject matter, but in the conclusion. Tatarize's argument is really that the MEANS of argument are similar. This is shaky ground again, but does have some basis. The means of argument in some math debates may be similar to that in some god debates, but by no means in most of them. My opponent says that the same fallacies are required, but even that isn't really true. For example, I doubt the math argument would use a Deference to Authority fallacy, because the "authority" says that two and two make four! Tatarize says, "In all of the wonders of this universe there is bound to be something which, when added together as will result in five things." Now THERE'S a fallacy for you. That is certainly an argument from ignorance. Tatarize also says, "To prove that God exists you would need one thing: a God! Similarly to prove that two plus two equals five you would need one thing: to place two things and two things into a basket and finding five things in that basket." This might be true. And the differences between these two arguments, then, should be abundantly clear: God can exist--by that I mean that it is metaphysically possible that a god created the universe. However, two and two do not, have not, and will not ever equal five. It is impossible. It is alien to the laws of the universe. In the first debate you mention, between Dairygirl and Just Call me Tarzan, Pro dropped the ball in the first sentence, when she said, "God's existance [sic] can be proven". I've established that God CANNOT be proven except by evidence that is beyond the scope of human reason, and I think most people agree with me on that one. I think first impressions count alot in a debate like that, and I think that's where Dairygirl fumbled the ball, NOT TO MENTION that she is an incoherent debater, as you have probably seen in other debates. The other debates are similar: in the second one, Pro's arguments were short and incoherent, in the third, Pro missed an argument (usually a fatal flaw. Trust me.) That debate is tied. Hardly a stunning defeat of the pro-God view. These debates aren't really evidence in your favor. None of these debates were really good, and none of them showed real similarities with each other. Here's a recent example of a debater making a ridiculous claim, much like claiming two and two are five. (http://www.debate.org...) See how it is turning out? If all debates were created equal, all debates saying that two and two are five and similar harebrained claims would lose entirely. My opponent asks, rhetorically, "So, is there any good evidence for God?" He forgets that I am not arguing for the existence of a God. He also forgets that he is NOT arguing against the existence of a God. We are arguing the simple statement made in your debate title, and nothing more. For your consideration: here are some debates that have been won by the Pro-God side. I think using individual debates as evidence is inherently flawed, since there are many ungovernable factors, but since you have I feel no qualms about it. (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...) And here is one of your own, which you are narrowly losing: http://www.debate.org... Thanks, Sola Gratia. I have thrown the ball back to you, and let's now dispatch with the idiotic basketball metaphors.