Faith in a theistic God does not come from evidence or reasoning so it is irrational.

I don't think that it's terribly extreme of me to make the assertion that there is no evidence for God; I can say this because so many faithful would agree, as would all atheists. Indeed, followers of religions may accuse those who follow "false religions" as not doing so on the grounds of evidence."Evidence" generally gets presented as combined personal revelation, but I hardly think I need explain in too much detail here why that is a fallacious idea; for a start, two people may have personal revelations that are logically inconsistent with each other... thus we would have a lot of explaining to do as to why we should trust personal revelation as rational reason to believe.I've never heard a reasonable argument that makes a good case for the existence of God (as I've explained) and, anyway, I'm somewhat dubious that one could consider it rational to accept a logical argument as a justification for belief without supporting evidence whilst still claiming to be doing so through rationality alone.There is, of course, Pascal's wager, I suppose... you could try to hide behind that.. certainly if the idea had any merit then you might try to argue that your belief is reasonable and rational because of Pascal's wager. BUT... the idea is a completely laughable joke. Essentially, we are asked: If there is a God and you don't believe, what'll happen? And if there is no God and you do believe? Well, then, it's better to believe! If this sounds resonable to anybody out there (I know people to whom it does), please consider these refutations:With competing mutually explusive claims, how do I know which god to believe in?But anyway, one cannot "choose to believe" in anything. One either does believe or one does not. Even if belief is the key to eternal life, I could no more fake it till I make it than I could a belief in Martians. Can you believe in Martians at will?One does potentially lose a great deal when one believes in a non-existant god... many life choices could be adversely affected by this belief. One might give a tithe to the Church or dedicate great chunks of your life to a nonexistant cause.So...When we get past the sophistry of the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Design, the Argument from Morality and Pascal's Wager, we are left with what? No evidence!Well, I suppose that most religious folk could provide their chosen book of scriptures as "evidence" for their God. "God wrote the Bible/Quran/Etc" so there is evidence of God! With all the will in the World, I think that anybody can see that this is unlikely to be sufficient evidence to shake a rational unbeliever into belief... and, I charge, that route was never the path to faith. By the way, it seems to me a far more common argument in Muslim circles than Christian... the argument is supported by the "special miraculous nature" of the words... apparantly, if you study Arabic, it becomes obvious that no human being could ever have composed the sublime and miraculous form of the writing in the Qu'ran.So...I can't really add more... I have shown good reason to dismiss all arguments presented and suggest that there is no evidence; I am not generally opposed by theists in this matter, who often say that "faith is a virtue".Con has not provided the slightest piece of evidence, nor any particularly compelling logical argument, to support the idea that Faith in a God could be based in evidence and reason.I urge you, gentle voters, to pass the motion.