faustuz

Well, maybe I let out a little chuckle.

MrDarwin

But either way, there is no "necessity of God".

Keith Russell

Dr. Rick said, to irichc:

"Faith is obviously plausible but still irrational; it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. You have provided no rational argument to justify faith."

Given that faith is irrational, no rational argument could justify faith. This is why some theists are quick explain, not that faith is rational, but that faith is superiour to reason, though they cannot offer evidence to support this claim, either, let alone prove it.

Evidence and proof are, after all, tools of the very reason mysticism rejects.

Keith.

Jayhawker Soule

What does that phrase mean other than:

• Based on reason (rationally), belief sans proof (faith) is superficially reasonable and appears worthy of belief (plausible).

Keith Russell

Consequent:

"Faith is rationally plausible" means--to me--that a rational person can consider it plausible that 'faith is', that faith exists; it is plausible for a rational person to accept that some people do act on faith, rather than reason.

I agree completely that faith is rationally plausible; it is plauslbie to believe that some people do act on faith, because some people do.

Acting on faith is still irrational, though.

Keith.

irichc

Faith is in theoretic field the equivalent of ethics in practical: the neccessity of believing in which is uncertain (as in ethics we have the necessity of acting). It is also some kind of utilitarism (see Pascal's wager).

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

The word "faith" is the antithesis of the word "theory."
And it has little to do with ethics in practice.
It is, in fact, destructive as it prevents you for finding the actual answers to questions by blocking them with superstitions (see Creationism vs Evolution, Earth centered solar system vs sun, etc., etc.) Which, in turn, makes it the opposite of utilitarian as it serves no practical purpose. With faith the irrational supersedes the rational and fantasy supersedes reality.

irichc

Nope. There are several scientists and philosophers who had serioulsy considered the hypothesis of God in their theories.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

Philosophers yes, but philosophers don't produce theories in the scientific sense.
Scientists never include the supernatural in any way shape or form in their theories. In fact there is a famous, very funny, cartoon of a scientist writing a formula on a blackboard. The left and right sides of the board are covered with calculations but the center is blank except for a note that says "and then a miracle happens."
A theory in science is about as close as you can come to being a fact in science, it is not a guess or a conjecture.

Wiploc

Perfect!
crc