Faith and reason are irreconcilable.

I understand that the claims of Christianity are not on trial here. But saying that Christians have faith without any evidence is clearly incorrect. At least incorrect of a good number of Christians, and I would not trust a Christian to defend his faith who did not have any evidence for it. (1, 2) The Limits and Differences of Faith and ReasonOnce again, one can have faith in something with appropriate evidence. We can't actually "know" for certain that God exists. You can neither prove nor disprove His existence. However, you can prove that God's existence is more probable than not. You would not know for sure, but you would have enough evidence to have faith that your beliefs are true. In the same way, we can't actually "know" there was a Big Bang, but scientists believe it happened because it is the best explanation to fit the evidence. I accept that God's existence must be taken on faith, but not faith devoid of evidence. We can have faith God exists because the evidence points in that direction. (3, 4) Believing & Knowing, Positive & NormativeThe Bible can be proven likely that it is the word of God, through historical verification (archaeology has consistently proven that places, events, and people contained in Scripture are/were real, and we can verify certain claims, like Christ's resurrection, historically), as well as the prophecies that have come true. I realize this debate is not about testing the claims of Christianity, but saying that there is no evidence to support Christianity is certainly false. One would have no reason to believe at all if all we had to go on was blind faith. It could rightly be said that Christians are only Christians because of an emotional need, rather than God actually existing. My statement that faith is not always blind does not contradict the definition of faith; only the definition that Pro uses. But as I have shown, there are two definitions of faith given by Pro's source: a faith that takes evidence, and a blind faith. Pro has completely ignored the first definition, and I accept that both are true. There are those who believe blindly, and there are those who believe based on the strongest evidence pointing in that direction. (5) The Normative Limits of FaithPro has not shown why one should accept the Holocaust as having actually happened but not the claims of Christianity. Archaeology and history have consistently been a friend to Christianity, proving the existence of the names, places, and events contained in the Scriptures. If one can accept the Holocaust, one can accept the claims of Christianity. In fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Alexander the Great. (6) The Epistemological Limitations of the Application of Faith to the PhysicalPhysical evidence certainly can be used to support belief in the metaphysical. For example, angels are metaphysical beings. But they have taken human form to talk to humans. Now granted, some people won't accept the evidence we do have (that is, the Old and New Testaments), but put yourself in the shoes of Mary, who was visited by an angel who told her that she was going to become pregnant while still a virgin. The miraculous prediction the angel gave Mary came true. That would certainly be evidence to Mary that she was visited by an angel, a metaphysical being, even if no one else accepts the evidence. To say that physical evidence cannot be used to prove a metaphysical reality is simply untrue. If God, a metaphysical being, created the universe, a physical entity, that universe is certainly evidence that God created it. ConclusionI have adequately shown that faith and reason are not irreconcilable. It is certainly true that some people believe blindly, with no evidence for their faith. But it is certainly untrue to claim that faith is never accompanied by reason (i. e. evidence). In fact, philosophical evidence is evidence, just like empirical evidence is.