Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

Before I begin, there are some noteworthy things which must be pointed out:Firstly, this debate is not a trial of Christianity or belief in any specific God. Secondly, I want to emphasize that this debate is not a test of the faith of my opponent. (1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and ReasonWhile con asserts that one “can. .. place faith in something after viewing the evidence” because “the only way to restore one's faith in something is to do it through reason and evidence,” it is the case that to accept anything on the basis of evidence is to know, rather than to have faith in that which is accepted. I reiterate that to know something is to believe on the basis of evidence, whereas to have faith is to believe in the absence of evidence. Reason is the vehicle connecting what evidence, and what is known. Faith is the vehicle connecting what is unknown (that for which there is no evidence) to that which is believed. Thus, faith and reason govern divergent spheres of function, and are thus conceptually irreconcilable. While it may be the case that con believes in God, empirical evidence (evidence methodologically obtained that is testable and repeatable) for the existence of God is nonexistent. Empirical reach begins and ends in the physical world, and God is metaphysical in nature. As such, while some may believe in God, God’s existence can not be known because it cannot be proven empirically. As such if one believes in God, they must do so on the basis of faith. Con accepts this by stating: “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. ” I would reiterate, however, that this is not a trial of religion or faith and arguments for any specific religion or faith are tangential to this debate. (3, 4) Believing & Knowing, Positive & NormativeCon’s assertion in (2) that “Philosophical evidence for God's existence is evidence, nonetheless” confuses the functional distinction between positive and normative claims. Positive statements are statements of what empirically is, whereas normative statements are unverifiable. Statements for or against the existence of God are unverifiable. The authority of the Bible is itself, and as such it’s authority is necessarily circular. Because it can neither be proven or disproven that the Bible is the word of God, it must be accepted on the basis of faith that it is what it claims to be. Con’s assertion that faith is not blind contradicts the definition of faith. Faith is blind (believing without evidence), for if that which was believed, was believed on the basis of evidence, it would not be faith. (See definition above. )Furthermore, con misapplies a peculiar form of Cartesian doubt to form his assertion that “the fact alone that we are able to question our own existence points to a God. ” In that rite, con is attempting to postulate on the metaphysical, based on the existence of the physical. It is self evident that our knowledge of the world, begins and ends with the physical, because the physical is all that we can empirically observe. Conclusions on the metaphysical cannot be derived from the physical, because the epistemological divergence between the two. We can positively assert that the physical world exists, but our postulations on the metaphysical are necessarily normative. (5) The Normative Limits of FaithWhile it is the case that man cannot go back in time to witness the Holocaust, pro confuses the functions of historical record with empirical knowledge. While I grant that historical record is plausibly suspect because it is largely testimonial based, the occurrence or non-occurrence of the Holocaust is not sufficient reconcile faith with reason because to accept or deny the validity historical record is academically and intellectually incongruent with accepting or not accepting any religion. In re the Big Bang Theory, I remind my opponent of the distinction between scientific theory and law. Scientific laws are empirically provable statements THAT phenomena occur, whereas theory attempts to explain WHY phenomena occur. Theory, by definition, is not empirically provable. To assert that it ought to be rejected on the standard of empirical provability confuses the concepts of theory and law. (6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the PhysicalCon is correct to distinguish belief and faith. Belief is acceptance of something. To have faith in something is the basis of something in the absence of empirical proof. To know something is to accept something on the basis of empirical proof. As such, faith is the faculty to belief without evidence. Reason is the faculty to knowledge via evidence. While con may interpret his subjective experience as evidence for the metaphysical, he is doing so on the basis of faith, because physical evidence does not and cannot speak to the metaphysical in any way. (I further emphasize that even though con may personally believe something, his belief is not sufficient to make that belief objectively the case. ) Simply, the physical is not sufficient (and thus incapible) to speak to the metaphysical in any way. ConclusionFaith is the faculty to belief without empirical evidence. Reason is the faculty to belief with evidence. As such, faith and reason govern divergent spheres, and are thus conceptually irreconcilable.