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

Again, my argument flies over the head of my opponent. In order to be sure that it doesn't again or for you the readers let me spell it out. Pro- God Exists: Nearly impossible to argue and arguments are bad at best. Pro- 2 + 2 = 5 : Nearly impossible to argue and arguments are bad at best. Con- God Exists: Requires one to tear down the arguments of Pro. Con- 2 + 2 = 5 : Requires one to tear down the arguments of Pro. Pro- No God Exists: You cannot prove a negative. Best: Compare God to fairy, goblin, leprechaun, teapot around pluto. Pro- 2 + 2 ! = 5 : True, 2 + 2 = 4, easily provable. Con- No God Exists: Your opponent cannot prove a negative, sit back and relax. Con- 2 + 2 ! = 5 : You're screwed. Now, notice these positions and take a good look at the topic. I am saying that Pro- God Exists is a very similar position to Pro 2+2=5. My opponent has, repeatedly attacked the position I am arguing for as being that "No God Exists" is roughly equal to "2+2=4". -- This is categorically false! Those debates are remarkably different, I freely admit... but that's not the topic! My opponent is, oddly enough, shifting the burden of proof. He's not doing so in this arguments but in the arguments this argument is about. If the argument were "Arguing for the non-existence of God is akin to arguing that two and two make four"-- he'd be set -- It, however, is not. Sorry to look like I'm splitting hairs here, but the topic is clear on the issue and he's trying to make it fuzzy. --- >>"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." The point is that it's impossible to prove that two plus two equals five. Which, when you compare that to the other impossible to prove position of God exists... you see the underlying congruity. >>"For example, I doubt the math argument would use a Deference to Authority fallacy, because the "authority" says that two and two make four!" At last, an argument on the topic! The two arguments may require different fallacies to try to make connections. However, due to the very nature of a fallacy you could arrive at any conclusion with the use of any fallacy. My preacher says the Bible is true might not as common as my math professor says 2 + 2 = 5, but it is just as bad and wrong. The fallacies used to support a bad conclusion are an outcropping of the substance of the argument, not due to some fundamental change in the "strength, logic, and reasonable aspect" of the arguments. Using different logical mistakes to conclude a wrong conclusion of God or five doesn't change the nature of the arguments: the point is they are all mistakes! >>"Tatarize says, "..." Now THERE'S a fallacy for you. That is certainly an argument from ignorance. Yes. It's a fallacious argument. It's a parody of the argument you used 'if you took everything into account then God would exist.' -- On a separate note this is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you conclude something because you cannot think of alternative possibilities. I don't know what that light in the sky is... so it must be aliens. >>"God can exist--by that I mean that it is metaphysically possible that a god created the universe." The problem with that is we are discussing the argument that God exists. The suggestion that God can exist does not help that argument. What is needed is evidence of the existence of God. I assert that there is none (if you present some solid evidence, I thusly lose). Taking this into account we see that the argument that 'God exists without evidence' is weak whether or not God actually exists. If God exists, but no evidence for God exists, the argument is weak. If God doesn't exist, there is no evidence for God, the argument is weak. The actual existence of God is fairly moot to the argument of whether or not God exists. If there's no evidence the argument is going to suck. ** On a side note, God existing and giving no evidence for His existence is pretty cold if eternal damnations awaits those who fail to believe. With exactly the same amount of evidence as should be present if there is no God, the conclusion that there is a God is unwarranted in either case. An all-good, all-powerful, all-loving God should perhaps make unbelief less warranted. --- The debates I mentioned were examples meant to highlight a fairly throwaway comment I made. >>"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." First off, you've simply said that God cannot be proven. Frankly if God descended from the sky proved himself and started doing the talk shows, I think it would pretty clearly established and well within human reason. Evidence beyond human reason is not evidence, in case you care. And you stated that if everything in the universe were known God would exist, that's not much of a claim at all. Further, most people agreeing with you is firstly false and secondly moot. Defending a bad argument with a fallacy of numbers is a bit on the odd side, even for you. My point about the evidence for the existence of God was because of the evidence rather than the existence of God. Actual evidence in favor of the notion would make the playing field completely unlevel. Whereas currently the debate in favor of 2+2=5 and in favor of the existence of God are both weak and fairly impotent. I wasn't asking that my opponent prove God as a random hoop to jump through, just as an example of THE thing which would show the incongruity of the two arguments. >>"And here is one of your own, which you are narrowly losing" Most of the debate references are minor points and fairly moot. In my defense of the MoonDragon debate he's gotten some biased points and some creativity points. The comments clearly make the point, from several individuals (including MoonDragon), that my debate was better. MoonDragon however is one of the best debaters on this site and had, I must say, a very clever argument. --- The argument that two plus two equals five is hopeless and there is no sound argument or compelling reason why any person should be compelled by the argument. The argument that God exists is hopeless and there is no sound argument or compelling reason why any person should be compelled bye the argument. The two arguments are "on the strength, logic, and reasonable aspect" "two peas in a pod." Thank you.