Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

It seems strange that my opponent insists that his argument is irrefutable, when I already refuted it in the last round. In my God, Faith, and Reason section, I showed how evidence and reasoning which would lead to God's existence, would not contradict the idea of a God that requires faith. It seems he only rebutted the Faith is Required for Reason section. Why My Opponent's Argument FailsA God that requires faith to truly be close to God, could still leave evidence that humans can use to reason that he exists. One who had faith all along and stumbled upon the evidence after, could be closer to God than one who didn't believe until evidence arose. This could all be part of God's plan, and my opponent has failed to show how this is contradictory. The Syllogism This syllogism is presented:"P1: It is possible that God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence. P2: If it is possible that God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence, then there is no verifiable evidence that proves God’s existence. C: God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence."First of all, P2 is false. Just because it's possible that God has not left a trace of evidence, that doesn't mean that there is no evidence. Something being possible, does not equate to something being true (unless we are discussing that which is in the realm of modal logic). Also, the argument could be reversed in the opposite direction: "P1: It is possible that God has left a trace of evidence that proves its existence. P2: If it is possible that God has left a trace of evidence that proves its existence, then there is verifiable evidence that proves God’s existence. C: God has left a trace of evidence that proves its existence."Since the argument format can work both ways, we really get nowhere with this syllogism. Thus, it can be disregarded. Consideration of Application I agree that something cannot be known by using purely a priori. To know a priori that a bachelor cannot be married, you must first have had experience to know the meaning behind the words "married" and "bachelor". The problem, is this does nothing to save Pro's argument. A God that requires faith to get close to him, could still leave evidence of his existence for some unknown divine purpose. Pro has not shown how this is contradictory, and has just assumed that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, without any real justification. God may very well require faith, but maybe the evidence he leaves that proves his existence, isn't there to prove his existence, it just does prove his existence. This evidence, which could be used to reason God exists, could be there for a deeper purpose, even if it is true that to truly know God, requires faith. Then what happens if real evidence is found?"It is unmistakably obvious that such a creature was in fact designed rather than by chance in a naturally selective process and is therefore undebatable empirical proof!"Lets say I granted that. How exactly, does this contradict the notion of a God that requires faith? "The Babel Fish considers that God actually does exist and in doing so proves that if he did, there would be no need for faith."This is why the argument from Pro fails. I already showed that God could have left evidence that proves his existence, for a different purpose than to prove he exists, even if the evidence does prove he exists. This is analogous to how flowers don't exist so humans can look at them and think they are pretty, even though that's what flowers do. Things can do things, even if that wasn't there purpose. You are assuming that God necessarily left the evidence that proves he exists, for the purpose of proving he exists. God could simultaneously require faith to actually get close to him, even if there is evidence out there that just so happens to prove his existence. Since this is true, and this conclusion contradicts my opponent's hypothesis that a God that requires faith and evidence for his existence are incompatible, then the hypothesis in question is false. "If there was undeniable proof then you wouldn’t have to have faith, cause you would know it to be true. You would have a reason."I already showed why this conclusion is false. If you came to know God existed because of this Fish, then this means you didn't have faith in God to begin with, meaning it's possible that they person in question reviewing the fish and coming to the conclusion of God, doesn't really know God, and just knows of God. However, for someone who has faith, the evidence could be the reward, and that person would actually know God. We simply do not know God's plan if he exists. It could be true, that God left things on Earth that prove his exists as a side effect of such thing, but the purpose of said thing were not actually to prove his existence.