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

"On the contrary, a lone personal experience of a miracle IS circular ." Then by your logic, everything we have learned from experience is circular, hence knowledge, science and everything is thrown out the window. With regard to the ice thought experiment, would my belief in ice be circular? I wouldn't have any way of persuading you, but my own personal belief would be justified based on my experience. "It hasn't yet been established that gods exist at all...You don't need to refute someone's beliefs in purple unicorns to accept that they don't exist, do you?" It hasn't been established SCIENTIFICALLY or by YOUR own experiences. But that doesn't refute a person's own experience. You committing the fallacy of arguing from ignorance: "Atheism is true because no one can prove god exists." "And if that weren't enough, we can repeat the test and FALSIFY it. We can etablish that you will eat another snickers bar within two hours, and then sit with you or follow you wherever you go, and witness you either eating another one or not eating one." But this test says nothing about my experiences yesterday, which is what we are trying to investigate. "But what reason do we have for believing that your miraculous experience of something that has never been documented is true?" It has never been documented in YOUR experience. But that doesn't discount the believer. "And how could we falsify it, if it's true that we can't jump into someone else's brain and experiene their experience?" You can't falsify it, just like if we lived in a certain day and age, you couldn't falsify my experience with ice. But that doesn't mean ice doesn't exist. You can only weigh my experience claims against those of others and yours and decide which makes the most sense. "Thus, there could be NO possible incompatibilities with this god and anything, at all," There are internal incompatibilities, i.e. All powerful, that could discount god. But not all views of god need to be all powerful, or all knowing, or omniscient. "I.E. This god cannot be falsified, thus it cannot ever be proven." With the ice example, ice couldn't be falsified to you, but my own personal experience does provide me with evidence to believe that as of now is beyond your capacity to refute. If your statement, there is no evidence, or tenable arguments for the existence of god, were true, then you must be able to have some way to refute these experiences, which you have already said you could not. But by that same token, the evidence is not the kind that is able to persuade you, since you did not have the experience. "It can never be evidence by itself." It is evidence for the person with the experience and for that person only. What exactly he encountered is for him to sort out, but you can not refute it outright from your vantage point, only make inferences from what you have experienced and know. "Frith" v. "Colmdof" Just because our experiences are different doesn't do anything to discount god. It could be possible that we only have a partial understanding of what we encountered. Take light for example. It is described as both a wave and a particle. This seems like it can't be true. But it is and, according to physicists, we can write down formulas that are consistent with both. They seem inconsistent, but they both reflect a partial understanding of reality that we can't intuit. The differences in religion can only be used against taking each religion literally and exclusively, which is not what we are talking about here. Our brains didn't evolve for understanding all of reality, but to be used by our genetic puppet masters to pass on our genes, so it shouldn't be a surprise when we don't understand something, including the divine. We can only take what we know and our personal experiences and weigh them against other people's claims and sort out the probabilities of each one being right. "This does not translate to reasonable acceptance of any experience." Unless you have the experience. "I claim, correctly, that no evidence has ever been presented for the existence of gods." No evidence from YOUR experience has been presented for the existence of gods. "I would say that it hasn't yet been established that gods exists at all," It hasn't been established in YOUR experience, just as with the ice thought experiment, it hasn't been established by your experience, but I would still have reasonable evidence to believe that ice exists. "The burden of proof lies on the claimant." You are the claimant here. I am the one taking the con position. By saying there is no evidence or tenable arguments that god exists, you are saying you can refute any reason for believing in god. I challenge that notion with people's claims of religious experience and you can't jump into someone's brain and refute that. You can only take what you have experienced and weigh the probabilities. "I would NOT be justified in not believing in ice, because you have demonstrated that there is an avenue towards greater knowledge and direct experience of ice: i.e. traveling to see it," No, you would still be wrong for the right reasons. It doesn't matter about the avenue, since it could just be said that we don't have access to it. Suppose that we lived on an island and had no knowledge about shipbuilding, but some Europeans came to our island and took me there and never came back. The way I got there is out of our current means. "I do not take it, I am not justified in simply saying that ice doesn't exist." As said previously, it isn't that there isn't a means, just that you can't take it right now. "It's a good stance; a healthy one. It leads to a greater effort to learn more about the unknown. But again, saying "I don't know" about ice does not make it "reasonable" for me to go ahead and believe in it." But it would be reasonable for me to believe in ice if I experienced it. Hence I would have evidence from my experience and a tenable argument you couldn't outright refute. "But it would be reasonable for me to say there is ice, even if I don't know the exact details of it. What explanation would he give, then, for how this omnipotent being came into existence?" You wouldn't know the same details about ice. If you experienced it, you could only say that exists and nothing else. "Wouldn't all of our similar testimonies be at least some type of minimal evidence…" No, they would not." Yes, eye witness testimony is evidence. If you go into a court of law and ten people give consistent stories that you committed a crime, then you are going to jail. Almost everything you believe from science is eye witness testimony, since you don't carry out the experiments yourself. What majorities can't do is manipulate what reality is. If everyone decided to vote that 2 + 2 = 5, it wouldn't change anything. It doesn't prove anything, just aids in the process of investigation.