"How do you find the time (usually you have to carry a heavy course load and work in college)."
Well, today was my second day, so there hasn't been much impact on my posting here. Although pretty soon it's probably going to get a bit more sporadic. So if you notice a drop in the level of irritation and annoyance here, you'll know why. :)
"I don't admit that faith is irrational."
Well, that's how I took statements like these:
"When you know in your gut something is right and you stick to it despite the consensus or despite the 'logic'. That's faith."
So your definition is:
"it is an unprovable statement about the external world."
You go on to say:
"Mathematics and science rest on such kind of assertions."
Let me try and show you where I'm coming from. How faith differes from the unprovable tenets of science and math is that scientific and mathematical theorems rely heavily on observation for proof. Objective observation. A mathematical theorem is thought of as valid when the observations fir the theorem. A theological theory, however, is based primarily on unobservable or not-yet-observed phenomena. This makes it less reliable. Don't you think? Theology and science are not totally mutually exclusive, but I think you need to admit that theologians tend to go into a certain issue with preconcieved notions more than scientists do.
"Rationality is about the connection of evidence to belief. If the evidence is completely out of sync with our belief, then we are believing something toward irrationality."
Well said. But what evidence (OBJECTIVE, not emotional evidence) points you in the direction of God? Certainly not enough to say "God exists" in my case, at least. Why not say "I suspect a higher power" instead of "I have faith in God."? Suspicion is defensible in almost any case, faith is not. When you say God, what do you imagine? A totally nonspecific higher power with no assumed traits of any kind, or a conscious, loving, perfect, forgiving being?