Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

In the theological quest for proving the existence for God there are two types of supposed reasoning that are used to support its existence. In this round I will discuss those two types of reasoning and discuss why only one of them is valid and then proceed to indicate that a God that requires faith would contradict the aforementioned valid method of that reasoning, thereby making their attempts to do so unreasonable. This will not disprove the existence of God, but instead prove that the quest for proof is futile. In conclusion, I will declare that speculation on the existence of a faith-based God is only compatible with faith and in turn has no place in the realm of reason. Define methods of proof a priori [*] - Knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). An a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." a posteriori [*] - Knowledge or justification that is dependent on experience of empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors are very happy"). A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question, or better say, what evidences one has to verify the validity of proposition. * http://en.wikipedia.org... Which is valid? The ontological argument is the only argumentum a priori which teachers have advanced in the field of naturalistic theism. According to this argument the existence of God is certified by the fact that the human mind believes that it does. If this argument has any validity, it is unimportant. It is only saying that what can be conceived of necessarily must be and then conclusively actually is. If the idea of God as it exists in every man’s mind includes that of actual existence, then one implies the other but the argument doesn’t show how the ideal implies the real. In addition, a hidden problem of regress occurs for if we have conclusions a priori, meaning that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from some universal rule (a rule which is itself borrowed by us from experience). Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall and that he doesn’t have to wait for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. Argumentum a priori has done little but to provide wild speculation but abstract speculations on necessity have no place in proofs and absurdity arises in talk of proving its existence a priori. Any a priori will regress (much like argumentum a posteriori proofs like the cosmological argument) back through a lineage of a priori statements that are eventually terminated by an original a posteriori origin. And therefore only the latter is sufficient to represent proof. Babel Fish Now that we understand why it’s only logically valid to consider truths as evident if revealed a posteriori or empirically we can proceed with my next objective. A God that requires faith would contradict the empirically valid methods of reasoning and it is best explained by excerpting Douglas Adams. In his novel, A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams used an imaginary and extreme example of evolutionary intelligent design to make it unmistakably obvious that such a creature was in fact designed rather than by chance in a naturally selective process. Such an extreme example is warranted because of the anti-evolutionists claims that the complexity we see in natural species must have come about by intelligent design and the extreme example provided by Adams should only help a theist with their claims if God was in the business of making any traces of his existence obvious. Here is an excerpt from his book: [1] The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix. Essentially, it is a universal translator that neatly crosses the language divide between any species. The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore it both imaginarily proves and disproves the existence of God but also indicates a contradiction in God’s motives. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. [2]Quod erat demonstrandum." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Babel_fish2. quod erat demonstrandum - which had to be demonstrated. Conclusion To emphatically conclude, Adams has clearly shown the contradiction. From the example of Babel Fish it is easy to conclude that a God requiring faith would be a paradox if advocates of intelligent design or any theist who meddles with attempting to prove God’s existence were to be successful, in addition it would undermine its [God’s] motives. Faith and reason are therefore incompatible and attempting to take faith anything beyond that [faith] is incoherent, futile and most of all unreasonable.