God is not a hypothesis that we confirm, after a lengthy reasoning process Belief should instead be likened to the memory of a life-altering collision with the inexpressible. That the collision occurred is undeniable: we retain the mark, although it is invisible to anyone but us. We are coerced into believing at the price of denying our own sense of what is real: to settle back into a bland materialism after such an encounter is to regress and to forget, and to fall back onto the less real simply because it is more readily apparent to one’s senses.
Thus, belief is not an inference, nor is it the result of a conclusion we have reached. To reason to God is, from this point of view, to return to the past, before the encounter occurred, and then to attempt to reason our way to that moment of spiritual insight, which is of course impossible, since insight cannot be coerced or constructed from ‘below’ but is rather a kind of descent of what is beyond us into our immediate consciousness.
Again, then, we insist that rational approaches to the divine are profane, and although they do serve the beneficial purpose of demonstrating that God is not irrational, they can do nothing to prove that He is real.