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

Thank you for this lively and thought provoking debate. "2) that what the testimonies claim are REAL, PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, REPEATABLE occurrences that have been known to exist and occur and do not require further explanation." Reply: If by repeatable, you mean scientifically, then that wouldn't be correct because we don't know most of the stuff we know through science. Science doesn't and can't explain most of the things in our lives. If you want to argue that it is science that determines ultimately determines what is true and false. But what determines if that statement is true or false? I'm not knocking science or suggesting it is wrong, but if it is suggested that there is some aspect of the universe that the scientific method is incapable of observing, then science wouldn't be what could tell you if it was true. As for physically possible, I outlined in round one a possible idea, earth's "meta-consciousness," as a possible way for a concept of god to exist. It may be watered down version to some, but nonetheless, it might meet some minimal requirements for deity. "Again, when ten people tell me that they saw you eat a snickers bar yesterday, it's reasonable to believe them. But when ten people tell me they saw you fly on the back of a unicorn yesterday, then BEFORE I can even consider whether their testimony is truly corroborative, I first need explanations on the existence of flying unicorns." Reply: But it does mean that they saw something. We aren't debating a specific god, just if a concept of one can be reasonably thought of with what we know of our natural world. So it could be that ten people saw me flying on what they thought to be a unicorn, but it turned out to be something else. Likewise, it could be the case that people's experience with the divine is something that our brains haven't evolved to fully comprehend, so it has to be put into terms we are more familiar with, like grandfatherly bearded men and such. "Nonsense. I could describe in great detail the properties of the ice, how it behaved under a myriad of conditions I could put it in. In short, I could EXPERIMENT with the ice." Reply: First, unless you are a professional scientist, you don't form your beliefs by actually going out and doing experiments, you listen to what scientists say. But what the theist is describing is something that is beyond the capacity to experiment. But what is being said doesn't necessarily contradict what we know through experimentation (remember, it's not any specific type of god/religion we are talking about, just god in general). Second, it doesn't matter what you can do with ice, because the parameters of the thought experiment could be such to where you only had limited access to the ice or experimentation was beyond your current means. "HOW is this whole ice example in any way analogous to experience of gods?" Reply: Just replace "ice" with "god" and "tropical climate" to "current limitations to our sense data" and "Rocky mountains" with "property of the universe that we haven't evolved to fully engage." "My argument is that, even though millions of people have given humanity millions of different reasons for believing in supernatural beings, none of those reasons are rational." Reply: And why is their personal experience not rational? because there is no god? and why is there no god? because all the reasons to believe are irrational. "but I can show how it is not rational to arrive at the conclusion that a god MUST exist simply from such reasons." Reply: but not everyone who believes in god is saying he "MUST" exist because of their personal reasons, but that they find it to be the most probable explanation. There is such a thing as weak theism. "There are better explanations for every reason that has been presented." Reply: As I said earlier, I am an atheist as well and find this to be the most satisfying answer. But I don't have access to everyone's experience, so there is a chance that I could be wrong. "To present evidence implies an interaction with others." Reply: There are some issues of semantics here. I am using the barest definition of evidence, a sign or reason to believe, which includes personal evidence, a kind that isn't repeatable. If we were talking about strictly scientific evidence, then you would be right, but I don't this matter should be excluded to just one and not the other. "Sorry, but once again, we do not need to discount god; there is no need to discount something that has not been shown to exist." Reply: shown in YOUR own experience to exist. Going back to our thought experiment, "There is no need to discount ice, since you can't prove to me right now that it exists." "I am only claiming that belief that such experiences were real cannot be the result of rational thought" Reply: You can only make such a claim if you present evidence that there is no god, which then the tables have turned and you must then become the claimant. "Gods, as I've explained in previous rounds, are not falsifiable." Reply: Not so. Some concepts of god may contain inherent contradictions, i.e. being all powerful, that would refute them. "I am having difficulty debating this with you because you consistently imply that a) I am trying to refute one's personal experience," Reply: To say that religious experience is irrational is to do so. I'm not sure what you are saying here: "I'm not saying your experience was wrong, but to believe it is totally irrational?" If it is irrational, then you now have an argument for something that is in contradiction to the belief. (from round 1)? "Thus, it requires not just a simple blind faith to believe in a god, but a faith that must systematically oppose the realities of human knowledge and understanding," What exactly about god is it that is in opposition to what we know about reality? "Is it REASONABLE for me to believe my experience was real and accurate? If yes, then both theist and atheist positions are valid; a contradiction. If no, then neither is it reasonable for the theist." Reply: But we aren't arguing the specifics of god, just if it rational to believe in one. It could be that what you experienced and the theist experienced were outside our current sense data capacities, like a blind man who feels the warmth of light, there could be a divine that our species hasn't evolved to fully grasp. So it's not a contradiction, just that you were both unable to grasp what was happening. Our brains didn't evolve to understand the universe, but rather, to do our genetic puppet master's bidding. And like the ice analogy, there could be more to the universe than what you and I have the capacity to experience. And some type of concept of god could fit in there. You said you could explain how substances change to give a reason for ice, I gave a theory of cognition to explain how god could evolve. Science can tell us many useful things, but it doesn't decide everything. That's the problem with Richard Dawkins is that he uses his credentials as a scientist to try to pass himself off as a philosopher. And in so doing, he glosses over other arguments like miracles and reasons from religious experience. So, is there a god? I don't believe so...but someone is out to get me.