Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

Thanks to Pro for his rebuttal.(1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and ReasonI would like to begin by pointing out that the source Pro provides is not significantly different from the one I offered last round. In fact, the first definition is: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." It even gives an example, "this restores one's faith in politicians." As I said last round, you can have blind faith in something or someone, that is faith without evidence. But you can also place faith in something after viewing the evidence, as the only way to restore one's faith in something is to do it through reason and evidence. Faith is not only placing belief in something without or despite a lack of evidence.The only reason God must be accepted on the basis of faith is because you cannot prove His existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. But you can prove that His existence is more likely than not, thereby supporting your faith in God. For example, God may be beyond this universe, but since God created this universe, then this universe is certainly proof that God exists. The universe wouldn't exist without God's existence, and logical arguments have been put forth to support that claim. Additionally, empirical evidence is not the only evidence there is. Philosophical evidence for God's existence is evidence, nonetheless.Pro is wrong to assert that Theistic arguments are inherently circular. If we accept Pro's claim, then all philosophical arguments are inherently circular. We could not even be sure we really exist to be asking ourselves these questions. One can assume one exists because one has to exist in order to doubt his own existence. But Pro would say this is circular reasoning because you are presupposing your own existence. Theistic arguments are not circular. Circular arguments are a case of begging the question. Arguments don't beg the question, people do. An argument like the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a case of deductive reasoning. It does not assume God already exists. It looks at the evidence, everything inside the universe, and argues that since everything inside the universe is contingent (that is, requires a cause of its existence) so, too, does the universe which is made up of all the individual parts. The argument does not presuppose a God. Neither do other strong arguments for God's existence (e.g. the Teleological and Moral Arguments).(3) Believing and KnowingThe Biblical Scriptures certainly can be verified. For example, the resurrection of Christ happened in history. It can also be historically verified. The Christian religion rises and falls on the resurrection, so since the resurrection can be historically verified, Christianity is strongly supported as the correct worldview. Unless Pro wishes to claim that history cannot be objectively known, in which case we would have to completely disavow the fields of history and archaeology.I have already shown why not all faith in blind. I have also shown, through Scripture, why it is not a religion that is "necessarily based on faith alone" in round one. This is not an appeal to authority. It is simply to show that even in the first century when the New Testament was being written, the new Christian faith was not based on blind faith but on the evidence in which could be empirically proven (in fact, most of the witnesses to Christ's resurrection were even still living -- Paul encouraged seekers to go search the evidence for themselves).(4) Only Through the Application of Reason to Empirical Evidence Can Fact be DerivedPro is simply incorrect to assert that all that can be known is derived through empirical evidence. In fact, that statement alone is self-defeating, because he did not come to that conclusion through empirical evidence. As C.S. Lewis, himself, has written: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [1] If this world is all there is, we would have no reason to trust our own mental faculties. If we are ever to be sure about what we believe, there must be a higher intelligence that has given us these faculties. The fact alone that we are able to question our own existence points to a God.(5) The Normative Limits of the Application of Faith to the MetaphysicalThe problem is that the Holocaust is still an event in history. People can lie. Video recordings can be faked. There is much historical evidence for the claims of Christianity as well. It is not a religion based on blind faith. But if Pro is correct, then we should reject the Big Bang altogether because there is no way to empirically prove it. But what scientist would get behind someone's statement that the Big Bang never actually happened?(6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the PhysicalHere, perhaps, we should separate belief from faith. You can believe in something without evidence, but you would require evidence to actually put your faith in something. But you can also believe something based on the best evidence available, as scientists believe the Big Bang happened -- not because they pulled it out of thin air, but because they believe it best fits the available evidence. I originally put faith in Christ because I literally came "as a child." I believed young enough that I didn't question any of these things. But when I got out of high school and entered college, having to start thinking critically, I started questioning my faith. I started wondering how I could actually know these things are true. After much investigation, and investigating the claims of Atheism and other religions, I came to the conclusion that the best evidence lies in favor of Christianity. Christianity simply has the best explanatory power of the universe and all of life's questions -- it makes the best sense of everything. I came by blind faith, but I stayed because the evidence supported my beliefs.ConclusionFaith may not require reason, but faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Some may have faith without evidence, but many have faith because of evidence. I look forward to our last round.[1] Lewis, Clive Staples, Miracles, p. 22.