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

Your argument is fallacious and completely misses the point. You are arguing in favor of incongruity based on an argument of substance on the con side of the debate. I freely admit the argument against God is different on most levels than than argument against the proposition two plus two equals five. The topic is that arguing in *favor* of the topic where the burden of proof rests with the argument in favor of the topic. That the pro arguments in each case is on similar logical, evidential, and reasonable foundations. Yes, the con arguments would be markedly different because God is unfalsifiable whereas the proposition of two plus two equals five is easily proven to be false under standard mathematics. You offer a difference within the substance of the potential arguments to tear down those premises. That is not part of the topic at hand. I specifically said that arguing *for* the existence of god is akin to arguing *for* the proposition two plus two equals five. The con argument is demonstratively different. However the pro arguments are akin to each other. One is asked to argue in favor of a proposition without any good arguments. One is asked to argue in favor of a proposition quite probably false. One is asked to argue in favor of an argument that essentially nobody has or can win. One is left in a terrible position of having no evidence to back up the claims, no sound arguments to reasonably draw the conclusions, and being presented with a plethora of good tear down arguments. I have personally debated on both sides of each type of argument. The pro stance in God arguments requires circular reasoning, deference to authority, arguments from ignorance, arguments from popularity, and a good deal of weasel words. The pro argument in favor of bad math requires similarly bad arguments. Whereas the con side of the debate has trivial counter-arguments which easily slice through the notably bad argument on the pro side. * Arguments on the "con" side are moot. The "pro" arguments are congruent. * Arguments on the substance of the debate are moot (by the introduction). However, my opponent does make some points which do address the above topic. He states that "To prove that God exists, we would need all available data. We do not have it, and even if we did, the data about every atom in the galaxy would be too much to comprehend, much less form an argument from it." - 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. He further contends that "[p]rovided we could, I believe it would show the existence of God somehow." - Why not equally contend that one simply hasn't attempted to add every set of two thing with every other set of two things. In all of the wonders of this universe there is bound to be something which, when added together as will result in five things. Provided we could do this, the premise that two plus two would be shown... somehow. You believe it would not. We have no way of proving this. This argument for God was offered to show incongruity? It seems to be grasping for straws. Which is exactly as any argument seems to be in favor of these two topics. When I say that a similar argument to the one SolaGratia offered could be similarly offered, I'm not making that up. I submit the debate "1=1" by Solo and Yraelz http://www.debate.org... "In an alternative universes 1 does occasionally does not equal itself." Likewise in the debate "Two Plus Two Equals Four" between RMK and myself he asserted: http://www.debate.org... "Objections to the more equal construction rest on the assumption that the mathematical notion of equality is appropriate to the description of a world where the equality of two quantities" The assertion that perhaps God exists if we look everywhere in the universe and magically ascribe that God exists is similar in reasonable and logical character as well as similarly far fetched. Positing alternative universes where 1 doesn't equal itself or in some world equals doesn't mean equals is akin to arguing that searching the entire universe will turn up a god. My position is that the pro argument in either debate is in equally dire straits. If you could posit an argument for God which wasn't clearly flawed as pro attempted. Such an argument would show the incongruity between the two positions: that is not done, it should not be possible if my argument is sound. I seriously doubt that many people on the planet believe that two plus two equals five. Some people do believe that god(s) exist. However, to assert that the premise is therefore true or defensible is a fallacy of numbers (no pun intended). This not an argument often used in support of an argument for bad math, however it is clearly a bad argument. I freely confess that there are different arguments and that the substance of the argument is going to be different from time to time. However, both pro positions can do and must make bad and fallacious arguments and be in a critically weak position. I could offer that "everybody believes that two plus two equals five and therefore it should be believed". It would be a bad argument in favor of the proposition, just as your argument that numbers of believers make an argument bad. -- "You say that a 14-year old with a basic grasp of argument could easily win an argument with a pack of theologians about whether God exists or not. Well, Tatarize, I'll believe it when I see it." Well, there have been a number of such debates between teenagers against the God premise with some fairly sound defeats for the Pro god side of the debate. Many of them have fairly basic arguments: * http://www.debate.org... JustCallMeTarzan at 19 years old (though age is hardly important to the point rather than grasp of the argument). * http://www.debate.org... Black.Nite17 at 16 years old. * http://www.debate.org... Korezaan at 15 years old. * http://www.debate.org... * http://www.debate.org... Logos at 18 years old. The pro-god argument is pretty well a dead end. You either make up something really bad or you copy the really bad argument somebody else already put forward. You're in, roughly, as bad of shape as arguing that two plus two equals five. Similar math debates have been a staple of debate, as you could check if you wished. Jackie-Chan posted half a dozen debates stating that 1 = 2. --- An argument in favor of a false conclusion cannot be sound. If one were to suppose the non-existence of God, these notoriously bad arguments would be the logical consequence. I feel that this is probably the source for the underlying congruity between the aforementioned arguments. So, notably, if it is possible that God does not exist, it is possible that asserted congruity is not only there but explained. However, to show that this congruity is an impossibility one need prove the existence of God. Though, the mere possibility of a congruity is not an ample argument that a congruity exists. For example, if there is no God, then the two arguments are clearly akin in that they argue for false conclusions. If God and evidence for God exists then the arguments are not congruent. However, if God exists, and no evidence for God exists then the arguments must, necessarily, be equally as bad as arguments in a universe without God and therefore congruent with the bad-math arguments. So, is there any good evidence for God? I contend, and my arguments rests, on the answer of "No". - The balls' in your court.