The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

Your argument:"It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god."Yes, constitutes to evidence, not asserting B'obo(God) exist."But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; which is not a God."Let's break this argument down:1. It is claimed regularity in nature is evidence for the existence of god.2. The logically necessary consequence of claiming God exist is that "phenomena occur in certain sequences"(there is requisite regularity in nature[?])3. Therefore claiming God exist is equal to claiming requisite regularity in nature exist.4. Therefore regularity in nature is not evidence for the existence of god.This is a non sequitur. At what point do you logically go from whether regularity in nature is evidence for god, to claiming god exist being equal to claiming regularity in nature exist? My argument never says anything about what God existing entails!There is a big difference between what would be *asserting* 'evidence' for the existence of God and what would 'entail' for *asserting* God to exist. This does not refute the argument. In fact, it ignores most of the argument, and only partially addresses the first two premises! You could have easily pointed out multiple false premises, fallacies, and paradoxes...But instead you chose to make an almost equally flawed argument... Kinda odd...No Loop whole wins:"So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God."Oops!!! Looks like you played a semantic game.What ever happened to No Loop whole wins?"No Loop whole wins:-sementic Games.-playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the reality of what the debate is about."Clever, you knew that I would possibly bring up the fact that you didn't even attempt to refute my first argument; so in order to evade the repercussions you tried to manipulate and distract, both the focus of debate, and context of your claim.Well, English doesn't work like that, and neither do honest debates, especially ones for intellectual truth.This is the actual resolution: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of GodThis is your claim (edited): I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God.Your claim:When you say, "any" you mean ANY.Any:one,a,an,orsome;one or morewithout specificationor identificationhttp://dictionary.reference.com...And that is respecting the most likely meaning of the debater, mind you.The Most informative, precise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.Also, even using your new context, you still didn't refute my FIRST argument. Yet, you are still saying ANY argument, whether or not just 1.Resolution:I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God.That said, respecting the most likely meaning of the debater, you mean what you are writing.Just because you claim something different in a debate doesn't alter the actual debate topic.By necessity, I contend that you will not refute any argument.I think originally you wanted to distract from the resolution in a way that would give you the upper hand.Alas, it seems you ultimately distracted yourself.-You have played definitions of words.-Missed the point of the debate.-You have failed to refute any one of my arguments, therefore you have not held up your position in the debate.I rest my case.