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

>>>>>To start with, your opening round was just a long-winded version of saying, "there is no evidence for god because there is no evidence for god." I'm a little confused as to why this is important. I am presenting an argument. The argument is: "No evidence has been presented.... that conclusively proves the existence of gods." I expand the argument by stating that, because of the lack of evidence, faith in gods must oppose reason. How is my opening round insufficient? Should I be presenting examples of lack of evidence? How would I present an absence of something? If you want to argue against my first premise, present some evidence for the existence of gods. If you want to argue against my second premise, demonstrate how believing something with a lack of evidence is rational. >>>>>For evidence, most people would argue for religious experience. Now you might say >>>>> The point is moot. A person's argument from religious experience amounts to nothing more than hearsay testimony. As lone support of a claim for omniscient, omnipresent supernatural beings, it's utterly insignificant, despite its emotional and personal importance. >>>>>>Here is a thought experiment: Suppose we lived in a tropical environment. But I venture off to the rocky mountains and return with tales of a strange substance called snow.....>>>>>> Regardless of your subjective experience, you could only provide hearsay testimony of snow. If we lived in a tropical environment, and neither of us had any knowledge that water could exist in any other form than liquid, and then you went to the Rockies and returned with stories about snow, then you would simply be making a claim. Were I to accept it, it would be solely from hearsay testimony, which is insufficient as evidence. I would have to have faith. But let's further this analogy. Let's say you come back from the Rockies and you tell me not only that you've witnessed a new phenomenon called snow, but that you played around with it a bit and learned that when you warmed it up it became water.. hence, snow was not an unknown mystical thing... it was simply water undergoing a physical change. In a constantly tropical environment with few tools, we probably would not be able to recreate that. However, we'd be in an environment brimming with examples of other physical and chemical changes. Building a fire would be a perfect example. Boiling water over that fire and turning it to steam would be an even better one. Your claim of snow, supplemented by concrete evidence that elements CAN and DO undergo physical changes, now becomes much stronger and can be accepted with more reason than if you simply arrived from the Rockies and said "There is a thing called snow. Believe it." But your analogy is weak in that it does not correspond to realistic issues with belief. Whether snow exists or not would have no effect on our lives on the island. That is not synonymous with humanity's religious history. >>>>>>This is a stretch. Certainly some people take this approach to believing in god. But with almost every belief you can find some people who do the same thing. >>> You have not presented any arguments opposing my point. If you are suggesting that we sometimes employ blind faith with other things besides belief in gods, I agree with you. But how does that oppose my argument, that we employ blind faith to believe in gods? >>>>>>Furthermore, you don't have any firsthand account of most of the things you believe either >>>>>> Interestingly, I cannot find anywhere in my original argument where I suggested that faith is lazy or that theists don't want to look for evidence. I didn't even imply it. Please stick with my original argument. Nor did I claim that firsthand accounts are the only forms of sound evidence. It seems like you are crafting these ideas to pigeonhole my argument into a more narrow form, so you can then attack that narrow argument. That's simply a straw-man fallacy. Please refer to my original text; it's easy to become a bit liberal with paraphrasing. I have not only seen DNA and electrons, but I know HOW we are able to see DNA and electrons. I have learned and understood how restriction enzymes work, how they discern adenosine, thymine, guanosine, and cytosine. I once wondered how humanity can see DNA, so I studied gel electrophoresis. Regardless of the fact that I don't own tools in my house that can carry out electrophoresis, I could acquire them and conduct my own research and see DNA. In other words, I am not being asked by scientists to have "faith" in what they see. I can do my own research. I can use my knowledge of biochemistry to predict specific outcomes were I to conduct the same experiment. What experiments can we conduct, and predict outcomes with precise accuracy, about the existence of any gods? Data from experiments and research is not a subjective vantage point. Scientific evidence is not valid because one, or two, or twenty scientists SAY it is. It is only valid if the results from, say, twenty similar experiments of twenty separate scientists all coincide and correlate within a narrow margin. Then, it no longer matters what the scientists say; indeed, some could picket and rally against it. It would make no difference. The evidence supports the facts, not the opinions of scientists, or my opinion of their opinions. >>>>>>>Also, doesn't it say in your profile that you believe in life on other planets? Evidence? Why would I supply evidence for my belief about life on other planets? I never once claimed there IS any evidence of that. That is precisely why it remains a "belief" of mine, and nothing more. I never omitted myself from my original argument. I did not say "one must adopt a position of accepting the rationale, and admitting a faith in one's beliefs in spite of it......except for me!" Until concrete evidence for life on other planets is presented, I can ONLY have faith in it. You have helped to strengthen my original argument. >>>>>>>So, despite the fact that we see so many Pat Robertsons of the world, especially where I live--the buckle of the bible belt--it is easy to forget that there are some reasonable theists. I think the point you're trying make here is that I have a stigmatized view of the majority of theists because of how I have perceived a minority of more outspoken and radical theists. The problem is that, when you speak to a "reasonable" theist (however we may define such a person), and present evidence which opposes his faith, he may be more reasonable in accepting that such evidence is valid, unlike the Pat Robertsons of the world. But ultimately, his belief in the existence of a god must still rely on faith in spite of his reason and in spite of evidence. Else what is a "reasonable" theist anyway? Someone who accepts that SOME of his evidence for a god is not valid, but has faith in a god anyway? How is that different from what I argue? Also, nowhere in my argument does it say that I think belief in god is a bad idea. My only claim with respect to humanity is that, ultimately, faith in the existence of gods will necessitate opposition to reason. I reread my opening remarks and I don't find anything near a condescending tone; however, I'm aware that tone is a subjective thing, and if you felt you were being condescended to you, it was not my intention. Well, Daxitarian, it seems from your first reply that you've avoided addressing my first point, and focused on the second. I can only conclude that you are conceding the first point: that no evidence has been presented for the existence of gods. I'm eager, then, to continue debating with you on the issues of faith and its relation to reason. This issue is a sophisticated one and an important one, and its role in the human condition was a compelling reason for my including it in my original argument. I look forward to your reply.