Yes!

Chatpilot, my friend, you're with it whilst that theologian Alister Earl McGrath claims that Dawkins use of the word as we two use is idiosyncratic; I'm surprise that he didn't claim a straw man! No, faith is indeed blind and deaf! Doesn't it jerk him around when people say just have faith if one cannot fathom the ways of the Ground of Being or what most people see as Sky Pappy!
 Sure, Aquinas does make the distinction betwixt faith in the Trinity as knowledge in the case of Yahweh. However, that won' t escape our skeptical approach. What do you and others say about this one point?
   My friend Articulett notes that faith begs the question. And I ever state that faith is the we just say so of credulity! And furthermore, as Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the  question thereof. A triple whammy,eh?
 Yea, some supernaturalists do like John Hick and Alvin Plantinga acknowledge that the arguments for Him aren't probative but merely suggestive, others the arguments carry great weight and other who like Soren Kierkegaard claim that those arguments are idolatrous, blaspheming Him.
  I find all faith blaspheming reason.
 Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance1 Oh, a fourth whammy,eh?
 Chatpilot, thank you! I invite you to be co-owner of this or one of my other blogs!
 Yes, I was born for retirement!

Carneades says:

Can God be  onmi-max God when incompatibility  arguments that we ignostics put forth  presenting His attributes as conflicting and incoherent? Carneades maintains no, because as for instance. to be perfect He'd have to be all virtuous but as not fearing anything that He cannot be and thus cannot exist. This is more than a probability statement but a certainty by way of analysis wheres as other naturalist arguments would be probable.
 Yet if we didn't discuss whether He could be virtuous or vicious, as David Ramsay Steele notes in " Atheism Explained : from Folly to Philosophy," then He is no kind of person we ever have known. even analogically.
  Since He is disembodied, He has no  brain with a mind. And have we ever observe such a being? No, and to argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of ignorance, but then faith rests there.
We ignostics have many more such arguments.
 Might the visitors here have their own misgivingings about His powers, revealing that He cannot exist?