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

You certainly have a right to insult my intelligence, but for the record I have been blessed (YES! By an eternal, omniscient God! ;)) with a good pair of eyes, reading skills, and a brain which can process and understand your arguments. I don't think your arguments passed over my head, in fact I think it's every credit to you that they did not. They hit me squarely between the eyes ;) But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so I will continue on. If I may, I will attempt to summarize my opponent's arguments. His basic thesis, I believe, was this. "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." If this were the case, you would be right and this debate would have no further purpose. However, this little comparison is flawed. First of all, as I have argued, the scope of evidence for these two debates is different. We possess the bulk, some might say all that is needed, of the evidence to conclude that two and two always, irrevocably equal four. However, the evidence to prove that a god exists is far, far greater. In fact, it includes every piece of matter in the galaxy. I know it is impossible to prove a negative, and this may sound like a fallacy, but consider: the only way that it would actually be a true fallacy in every case would be if you possessed ALL relevant data--as we DO for the 2+2=5 argument, and as we do NOT for the God argument. So, your original argument is quite simply wrong: these two popular debate topics share no similarities. They are almost completely unrelated to each other. I would be doing the same thing, for example, if I started a debate with an equally nonsensical topic, such as "Steve Martin is akin to Margaret Thatcher." I notice that you even admit these two debates are, "[R]emarkably different." You go on to say triumphantly that this wasn't the topic. I'm wondering how you can say at the same time that two debates are "akin" and "remarkably different." These may be equivalent in your relativistic universe, but in the real world they form a very tidy contradiction. I should mention that making the debate "fuzzy" was certainly not my intention, and indeed seems a rather odd, even petulant complaint to bring against me. I was, I admit, struggling to DISCERN the topic, because it seemed to me that it inexplicably altered every time you formed an argument. But I was not, at all, trying to "fog" or "fuzz" the topic. >>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.<< I suppose you couldn't resist arguing against God, even though YOU have kept reminding me that this isn't the topic. If God is God, by the way, he can do whatever He wants. You conclude: "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 [sic] the argument. The two arguments are "on the strength, logic, and reasonable aspect" "two peas in a pod."" The argument that God exists is hopeless? No sound arguments or compelling reasons? Read Lewis, Schaeffer, and the other Apologists. If reason is the highest standard for you, these authors have done a pretty god job of proving god through reason. Also, Lee Strobel. If there were "sound arguments or compelling reasons" that God exists, then those who believe in a god, most of the world's populace, are deceiving themselves. You are one of the "enlightened" ones, it seems. Frankly, it rankles that you believe yourself so superior to me and the billions of others who believe in a deity. Do you really believe that every believer in the world, of any real religion, is deceiving themselves? I can't accept that, and I doubt many other people can, either. It is false. And so is your original argument. Thank you for the debate, Tatarize. Whatever way the results go, you are a worthy debater. Thanks! Sola Gratia