Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

In the comments, he indicated that my definitions are unacceptable, but he didn't contest them in his argument. As such, I will continue with these definitions (which are perfectly reasonable and he hasn't supplied an alternate definition). Additionally, even the dictionary definition of faith does not preclude evidence: "confidence or trust in a person or thing. " [1] I don't know about you, but I don't trust someone unless I have reason to. Pro hasn't even given a source for his definition. He could just be using his own personal definition, which I would not be bound to accept (especially if it's an ad hoc definition to prove the resolution). (1) Faith and Reason are Irreconcilable Faculties of AcceptanceThe problem is that Pro has a faulty definition of faith. Faith, as properly defined and understood, does not denote acceptance of something despite lack of evidence. If you lack evidence, then you have no more warrant for your belief than someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. But there are good reasons to believe in God. In fact, we, as Christians, place faith "in" God. We don't do that without reason. I would not trust a complete stranger with money, or get in a car with someone I didn't trust. Faith denotes trust, and we can trust in the empirical evidence for God's existence, as well as the philosophical evidence for God's existence. In fact, the Scriptures even support the fact that there are empirical reasons for believing in God (Genesis 1, Romans 1:20, 2:15). Faith and reason are clearly not irreconcilable faculties of acceptance, because reason leads to faith. (2) The Empirical Limits of Reason and Functional Difference of FaithPro is simply incorrect in his assertions here. If there is a God, and He created the universe, we would expect to see a universe as evidence of God and His creative power. We see such a universe. If there is a God who is all-good, we would expect there to be a moral code written on our hearts. We have such a moral code. The list goes on and on. The empirical evidence, while a naturalist could posit a completely natural explanation, actually supports the existence of God. (3) Believing and KnowingPro asserts that we cannot actually "know" that a God exists, but this is again incorrect. Many people have experiences which confirm the existence of God. For example, when Jesus walked the earth He supported His claims with miracles. In fact, He offered his miracles as proof of his claims to be God (Matthew 11). In fact, Jesus often told His disciples to look for the evidence, not to believe with blind faith. Paul even exhorted others to seek out the evidence for Christ's resurrection, including to seek out the eyewitnesses who were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6). Saying that you cannot prove metaphysical statements with empirical proof is only half correct. You can't prove a metaphysical argument with empirical proof (for example, you can't use the evidence to support the Ontological Argument), but you can use physical evidence to support a philosophical argument (e. g. the universe itself is used as proof in the Cosmological Argument). After all, if God created a physical universe, you would expect to see physical evidence. And we do. Christianity is not a religion of blind faith. (4) Only thorugh the application of reason to empirical evidence can fact or truth be derived. To reason does not only require empirical evidence. After all, there is no empirical evidence that a Big Bang occurried. It is simply assumed by trying to look back through the universe. Philosophical evidence is as much evidence as empirical evidence is. God can be proven philosophically, and that would be enough evidence for God's existence. (5) The Normative Limitations of the Application of Reason to the MetaphysicalUsing Pro's own definition, the Big Bang is not a statement of fact because it is not empirically provable. There are many things that cannot be empirically proven but can be metaphysically shown as true. Additionally, I'm sure Pro believes the Holocaust occurred, but it cannot be empirically proven. It can be historically verified, but not proven like science has proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. (6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to Annals of the PhysicalInformation can be accepted without proof, but that makes it a blind faith. That doesn't make it faith, for to put faith in something (especially God) requires trust. Additionally, to have faith that God exists requires evidence (and God even supports that). He has said "let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). God wants us to use our minds as well as all the other parts of our body. Reason leads to faith as much as it leads to knowledge. ConclusionThere is no reason to suppose that faith and reason are irreconcilable, for reason leads to faith. Some people do believe faith blindly, but for many of us (myself included), our faith is supported by the evidence. I can use reasonable arguments to show why I can be confident of placing my faith in God. Showing that some people don't believe in faith reasonably does not mean that faith and reason are irreconcilable. Nor has Pro proven this to be the case. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;