It is logical to believe no deities exist.

It's clear that Rogue's stance and my own scarcely differ; we are in agreement about many things. However, while I can hardly find fault in the truth of any of her premises, the conclusion she inevitably draws from them is invalid.She begins by saying she has some objection to my "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" point, but she continues to simply agree with everything I've said. An absence of supporting evidence is justification to not believe a statement is true. There is no evidence supporting "A deity exists"; therefore, "A deity exists" should not be believed to be true. But the same can be said for "No deity exists"; there is no evidence supporting that claim, so it should not be believed to be true.So what is Rogue's supporting evidence for "No deity exists"? Well, firstly, we can dismiss her comments about Biblical literalism and a deity who personally interacts with the lives of humans. Obviously the historical claims of the Bible can be definitively disproven with just about any single field of science, be it anthropology, astronomy, archeology, biology, chemistry, or almost any other (if not every other). This debate isn't about the belief in a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian deity, nor is it necessarily about a deity who even has a personal interest with the lives of humans; it's about a belief in any deity at all.Rogue asked "What does transcends our physical universe mean? Can we not only sense the physical? If so, how would we have any way of sensing that which transcends the physical?" The answer is, we wouldn't. That's the point I was making: it's impossible to find any evidence relating to deities (be it supporting or contradicting). Without opening the lid of the shoebox, we can't be sure if there's a deck of playing cards in it or not; similarly, without searching beyond our physical universe, we can't be sure what is and isn't there. Wait a second... is there even a such thing as "beyond our physical universe"? I don't know. I see no reason to believe there is; but, then, I see no reason to believe there isn't, either.She asks "Is it logical to believe or even seriously consider the possibility of supernatural explanations knowing [most phenomena have natural explanations]?" No, it's not. Don't forget I'm an atheist, too, Rogue. I don't believe in the supernatural, and I don't take claims of the supernatural seriously. I don't even bother entertaining a claim, no matter what that claim is, unless it has supporting evidence.You seem to greatly underestimate the logical gap between not believing a claim is true and believing that claim is false. Evidence is necessary to justify any belief, regardless if that belief is a positive (deities exist) or negative (deities don't exist) assertion. And an absence of evidence in support of a claim does not equate to evidence in contradiction to that claim.Now that all of those details have been dealt with, let's take a look at Rogue's evidences for the non-existence of deities:1. "A deity exists" goes against known scientific theories.She says the deck of playing cards and God were too incomparable for a couple reasons, one being that the deck of playing cards doesn't "go against known theories and scientific law". Which scientific theories are you talking about, Rogue?Science concerns itself with and deals solely with the physical universe, so suffice to say there is no "God doesn't exist theory".2. "A deity exists" is a miraculous claim.This was her second objection to the incomparability of the cards and God. I assume by this she means that "A deity exists" is an extraordinary claim, one that sounds totally strange to an unbiased party. I can agree with this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously.However, I would argue that (following this same pattern of logic) "deities don't exist" is also an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously.Generally, though, what is considered "extraordinary" or "miraculous" or "bizarre" is too skewed by personal bias. Once upon a time in our species' history, "The Earth is round" would have sounded like a spectacularly nutty claim. It's better to form beliefs based on actual evidence rather than mere speculation.3. Most religions in history are now considered myths.There's quite a few things wrong with this evidence:1. What is popularly considered true does not equate to what is actually true, and what is popularly considered false does not equate to what is actually false. I'm sure my opponent can agree that just because millions of people believe the Christian deity exists doesn't mean it does. Likely, just because people generally consider the Greek gods myths doesn't mean they don't exist.2. Most, if not all, deities that mankind has invented have a creation story accompanying them that contradict the scientifically known history of the universe; that's the reason I believe the Greek gods and such don't exist. However, a deistic deity makes no such false claims; such a deity would simply have created the Big Bang singularity or have been the catalyst of the expansion of space-time.3. This commits the logical fallacy of composition: assuming that something is true for all of a whole, because that thing is true for part of a whole. (Example 1: all women I've met have been single; therefore, all women must be single. Example 2: most invented gods have been fictional; therefore, all invented gods must be fictional.)4. You are not only asserting "No deity in religion exists," but "No deity at all exists"; this includes the deistic belief of a deities.4. There are natural explanations for most "supernatural" claims.Again, this commits composition: most natural phenomena we know of have natural explanations; therefore, all phenomena must have natural explanations.5. People used to use God as a way to explain things they didn't understand.While this is probably how religions started, it does not necessarily mean a deity does not exist. In other words, the fact that a hypothesis is formulated invalidly does not necessarily negate its truth.For example, ancient people used to use leeches as a form of medical treatment to alleviate almost all illnesses, even things as basic as headaches, by sucking out the "bad blood". Of course, as time progressed, so too did our knowledge of human anatomy, biology, and diseases. Nowadays, we don't use leeches in hospitals for anything, except of course for certain conditions related to blood circulation and skin problems, such as abscesses and thrombosis. Even though our original hypothesis concerning the medical uses of leeches was clearly invalidly formulated, it turned out to not be entirely wrong.Back to you, Rogue.