It is logical to believe no deities exist.

Thank you, Rogue. It's good to be up against such a seasoned and high-ranking debater such as yourself, and I'm looking forward to this debate.Why do we believe anything?To begin I'd like to address the main issue of this debate: How can we determine the truth or falsity of a claim (such as "A deity exists")? The answer is (and I'm sure my opponent would agree), of course, evidence. Whether it be observable physical data or a logically valid syllogism, evidence is the only reason that adequately justifies a belief.For instance, if I told you your spouse was cheating on you and left it at that, you would demand evidence to support my claim before you even bothered to take it seriously. And if I refused to present evidence, or if I was otherwise unable to provide any, then you would remain as unconvinced as you were before I even told you (which is to say not at all).If a claim has adequate evidence supporting it, then it should be believed to be true. If a claim has adequate evidence contradicting it, then it should be believed to be false.So then should we believe God exists or believe God doesn't exist?To say we must believe any claim to be either true or false commits the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy", an invalid declaration or implication that only two categories or options exist when, in fact, three or more conceivably do. In this case, a third option exists when presented with a claim: not forming a belief on way or the other, due to insufficient supporting or contradicting evidence. (Please note I am not accusing Rogue of this fallacy; I'm just explaining the logic behind my stance.)Now imagine, hypothetically, I approached you while holding a closed shoebox and told you "This box contains a deck of playing cards." Without me saying or presenting anything else, should you believe that my claim was true? Of course not, and those who do are overly gullible. The claim may, in fact, be true, but there's no reason to believe so without evidence.Should you believe, then, that my claim was false? Again, the answer is no; those who do are overly skeptical. While the claim may be false, there is still no reason to jump to conclusions. There is an equal amount of evidence to support the claim that the box contains a deck of playing cards as there is to support the claim that the box does not contain a deck of playing cards. Therefore, the claim "This box contains a deck of playing cards" shouldn't be believed to be false, either (which is the equivalent to saying the claim "This box does not contain a deck of playing cards" shouldn't be believed to be true).So, then, what if I asked you "Does this box contain a deck of playing cards?" The logically valid answer is neither "Yes" nor "No", but is "I don't know, and will continue to not know until further evidence is either presented or discovered".Absence of evidence is evidence of absence?The popular meme "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" was popularized by the intellectual icon Carl Sagan, but falls short of the logical truth. In reality, an absence of evidence is just that: an absence of evidence in support of the truth or falsity of a claim. My failing to present evidence in support of the existence of the deck of playing cards does not necessarily mean it does not exist. It only means your belief in its existence would be unjustified.Likewise, though, your believe in the deck's non-existence would also be unjustified without contradicting evidence to the claim that it exists.The Divine ShoeboxA deity, by definition, is supernatural and therefore transcends our physical universe, the only place we can ever hope to obtain evidence of anything. It's like the deck of playing cards in the box (if, in fact, there even is a deck of paying cards in the box); it's impossible to logically deduce its existence or non-existence.Do not misunderstand, though: we CAN logically deduce that some things don't exist. For instance, if I had told you instead that there was an Orca whale in the shoebox, you would be justified in believing that claim to be false (since everything we know about Orca whales contradicts the notion that one can fit in a shoebox).Similarly, we can infer that a maximally omnipotent deity does not exist (a deity capable of anything, including logical absurdities). We can also infer that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent deity does not exist due to all of the ongoing evils in the world.But can we say it is logically justified to believe no deity at all exists? Without evidence, no. But I have rambled far too long. Rogue has already said she has evidence for the non-existence of deities, so I will allow her to present this to us.Over to you, Rogue.