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

We are starting to argue in circles, so here is my summary. You want evidence and a tenable argument for the existence of God. The evidence for the believer is usually some sort of religious experience. But you discount them simply by saying, "To this day, human history has never witnessed any supernatural event." This point is just begging the question. We have never seen any supernatural events because we have never seen any supernatural events. You haven't seen or evaluated every putative supernatural event. As long as I can't jump into someone else's brain and experience what they are experiencing, I can't refute their belief, and therefore there argument is tenable. That doesn't provide evidence for me to believe, but it does provide them with a rational reason to believe. But as my point with the plane shows, rationality doesn't guarantee truth. And the debate isn't whether god exists or not, just if one can make a tenable case for it. What you seem to be asking for is SCIENTIFIC evidence for the existence of god. But that is the whole point of the supernatural--it is outside of natural means of operation. But we never specified that scientific evidence was the only evidence in play. Pazmusik: "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?" Reply: I don't see how this is a dichotomy since I never specified which possibility could be right. I am not arguing that any specific religion is right, just that it is possible that they could be imperfectly reflecting reality. Your last two sentences don't go together. You say in court that you have to demonstrate that a scenario could have happened. Then you say what has been demonstrated that god does exist. That is like saying in court, what has been demonstrated that the murder did take place. You switched out "could have" for "certainly did." In round one I laid out how some concept of god might exist. "This is the fundamental difference between "faith" and "trust". 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." You haven't provided any inconsistencies of god and what we know about the world. It is certainly reasonable that god could exist and that we haven't discovered him yet, or that only certain people have. You might say that psychology explains what happens when people say they "discovered" god. You might be right. But the believer would disagree. You may say your opinion of what happened fits a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean it is right, and the believer would disagree with you. You could be offering a "just so" theory. An analogy of this often comes up in evolutionary psychology. e.g. Teenage boys wear ball caps backwards because they are trying to establish themselves as the alpha male and show that they are above the rules that restrain their sexual competitors. Also, wearing a hat backwards exposes the face to the elements, showing that cap wearing would produce offspring likely to survive. The explanation fits what we know about evolution, but you can't replicate why a person wears a ball cap backwards. Instead you are just take what you know--evolution--and assume it can be used to explain everything. But sometimes what we know may fit and still be wrong. Maybe the boy is wearing the hat backwards for conformity reasons, or to be funny. Our theories of why people have religious experiences may fit another theory, but that doesn't disprove them. Pazmusik: "but we have NO evidence of ANY supernatural forces acting on anything in our world, EVER. Period." Reply: YOU don't have any evidence, but people who claim to have religious experiences disagree. Just because it can't be reproduced doesn't mean it doesn't count for that person as evidence. I went to bed around 12:30 last night. My evidence is my experience. But we can't replicate that. Likewise, you can't replicate what people are experiencing in regard to religion or god. Pazmusik: "No, because any number of hearsay testimonies are insufficient to prove extraordinary claims." Reply: Opinion doesn't make truth, but it does provide evidence. If you are on trial for murder and three witnesses say they saw you do it, there is a good chance you will go to jail. Pazmusik: 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." Reply: This argument might stand if we were arguing for one particular religion being true over the others, but the fact that there are numerous religions doesn't discount religion in general. It could be the case that religion is taping into some part of reality that is beyond our ability to grasp, so it is imperfectly reflected through different religious sects. Pazmusik: If I cannot explain something, how is it at all rational to create a supernatural explanation, one that would demand its OWN explanation? Reply: The simplest answer is not always the best answer. Theists can make this mistake as well. For example, William F. Buckley gives for believing in god, "I find it easier to believe in god than believing that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop." But just because it is easier to see how creativity can be explained by god doesn't mean that it is the best answer. Likewise, it would be easier to assume the universe has just existed, and that you don't need god to be the "first" cause, but that doesn't make it the best answer. For the ice thought experiment, you are missing the point. The point isn't if you can prove ice exists, but rather that you could be justified in not believing in ice, while I would be justified for believing in ice based on my own personal evidence, and I would be right. Your argument just boils down to, "Miracles don't exist, because miracles don't happen." If I told you I had an experience with god, your response would be, "No, you didn't, because god doesn't exist." I would then say, "How do you know that." You would say, "How do you know that he does," I would respond, "because I have experienced him," You would say, "I want more evidence" I would say, "other people experience a similar thing," You would say, "well, they are just delusional," I would ask, "How do you know that," and you would say, "because god doesn't exist." You couldn't refute my argument or discredit my evidence, hence your original statement of there is no evidence, and no enable arguments, for the existence of god. If you could somehow show that god is incompatible with something we do know, then you might be on to something.