There is no evidence, and no tenable arguements, for the existence of any gods.

>>>>You say it is okay to believe in aliens without evidence… Not my point. I illustrated that my believing in aliens requires faith. I am not arguing about whether it's "okay" or not to believe in anything, gods or otherwise. >>>>Science is not subjective(etc)… I said clearly that DATA and EVIDENCE was not subjective. >>>>>No evidence conclusively proves anything(etc) I could just as easily have written "no evidence has been presented that reasonably proves..." and you could have asked what a reasonable proof is. Then we descend into philosophical solipsism, and how we can truly "know" anything. That's a fine philosophical debate to have, but it's not this debate. >>>>That's why in a court of law(etc)… Very well. To apply this standard fairly to gods, please provide what proofs have been presented for the existence of gods that are beyond a reasonable doubt, and make sure to also define "beyond a reasonable doubt." >>>>> Suppose you are at the airport… Upon realizing my error, I would have reflected that there was more information to be had: 1) other destinations called "London", 2) the reality that two gates having destinations with the same name is possible, 3) boarding your departing flight based on both gate number AND destination can assure fewer blunders like this. You're right. Rationality is self-correcting, so long as there is further knowledge available that you actively ignored. What known evidence is there of gods that we actively ignore? >>>>>>if it is at least possible that we atheists are wrong, then it is possible that the person's experience might be right and hence a rational reason for believing. No, this is a false dichotomy. There are many other possibilities. It's possible that a god created the universe and then ceased to exist and is no longer here. It's possible there is more than one god, and they're feuding, and knowing which is the right one is crucial to your eternal happiness. Possibilities work in the context of "reasonable doubt" when you're in a courtroom for a murder trial because it has been DEMONSTRATED that a particular scenario COULD have occurred. When has it ever been demonstrated that gods exist, at all, in the first place? If we can be 99.9% sure of a thing, it does not follow that the remaining .01% uncertainty makes it reasonable for someone to claim the opposite. >>>>But none of that demonstrate freezing. There would be other things on the island that would be solid at room temperature, but upon heating them, we would witness them melting. Then, after cooling, we would witness them solidifying again. Further examination of this phenomenon at the molecular level would give us a pretty good understanding of what's happening. What we COULD do with water in a tropical environment is look at how water molecules behave as they heat up. By heating the water and establishing that water molecules move faster and further away from one another at higher temperatures, and EXPERIENCING how the molecules slow down and bind closer together as they cool down, we can infer quite strongly that water molecules must move slower and slower, and closer and closer as the temperature drops until they cannot get any closer! This discovery can WELL explain the properties of this "snow" or "ice" that you witnessed, especially since we'd have evidence of other liquids solidifying as their temperature drops. And even if it was not a complete explanation, it still surpasses a supernatural explanation for this reason: because we have evidence of a natural phenomenon that can slow molecules, but we have NO evidence of ANY supernatural forces acting on anything in our world, EVER. Period. >>>>>>>But suppose it wasn't just me who experienced ice... The reply to this argument is built into your statement. You have presented a rational pathway to knowledge. If a large fraction of people have traveled to the ice, then it is clear that this "ice" is accessible, and there is another pathway to knowing it outside of faith. One could simply travel to see it! As long as THAT was a reality, there is an additional pathway to knowledge that one would be refusing by simply accepting the existence of ice on faith. So... what about people today, who have never actually seen snow? (I know a few people who haven't.) They don't have to have faith that snow exists. They can see photos, video and other media records of it. They can learn of its properties and understand how it forms and why it MUST exist in certain environments. They can even test those studies at home and create their own snow. In short, instead of faith, they can TRUST the preponderance of evidence. This is the fundamental difference between "faith" and "frust". The difference is not in how a person believes in something. The difference is: what is present that supports that claim? If there is a large amount that supports it, and little or nothing to oppose it, then even without experiencing the phenomenon you TRUST the evidence of its existence. If there is little to NO evidence that supports it, or indeed evidence to the contrary, then you must have faith. >>>>Wouldn't all of our similar testimonies be at least some type of minimal evidence… No, because any number of hearsay testimonies are insufficient to prove extraordinary claims. An appeal to majority, or appeal to popularity, not only is not evidence of the claim but also further demonstrates the irrationality behind it. A cursory look at our NUMEROUS religions, the millions of people behind each, and their unwavering conviction that theirs is the true religion, is sufficient to display this fallacy. >>>>>>You are not addressing my point in that not everyone "blindly" believes in god… I never argued that all theists ONLY blindly believe in gods. I argued that they must also consider other explanations and reject them. >>>>>Intelligent design would have been the most rational explanation before evolution came along and shattered it. My argument refers to the current time, not the past. >>>>>You said to believe in god, you must employ a system of opposing reality. That means not wanting to look for evidence against your beliefs. Not so. In my original argument I never said one employs a system. I said that people systematically oppose rational explanations. (i even said one must ACCEPT that the rationale exists first.) To oppose an explanation, one must research it first, in order to oppose it. This is a proactive stance... it requires effort, and is decidedly not lazy. >>>>Hence, they would be rational in believing in god. And the fact that so many similar cases appear, it at least means that there is something to be explained. Once again, as evidence for supernatural beings that we have yet to show exist, appeals to popularity are useless. To this day, human history has never witnessed any supernatural event. Where is the rationality in creating a supernatural explanation for an unknown, when there has never been any evidence of the supernatural? If I cannot explain something, how is it at all rational to create a supernatural explanation, one that would demand its OWN explanation? If one has a personal, subjective experience, and explains it with a god, how then does he explain that god? Another god? To what infinite regress will he provide supernatural explanations that, by their own definition, cannot be explained? What evidence has been presented for the existence of gods? What rational arguments can be made for the existence of gods? What evidence for gods is better than, or opposes, our current natural explanations for phenomenon? What tests can we conduct to show the existence of gods and what predictions can we make for the outcomes? What can we infer from the reality that there are millions upon millions of varying religious experiences that do not accord with one another? And lastly, how do you define a "reasonable" theist?