I've spent some time thinking about faith, and whether it's rational to believe in a God that "works in mysterious ways." I think it's rational to be a skeptic and neither confirm nor deny the existence of a God that is "myserious." That is, keeps a consistent standard of creating a Universe that appears to those minds in it that it operates either without a creator present or in a way where a creator being present or absent becomes indistinguishable. However, gods of various faiths reveal themselves to mortals in the holy works of various faiths. They want to use empirical data or sight to make some people be convinced while others are expected to believe the miracles they did not witness and believe in a god they did not hear. Even if everyone in the world agreed on a proposition, unless there is evidence for that claim I would have to remain a skeptic in-regards to it - once evidence arises belief becomes founded though only in the Anti-Realist sense.
Anti-Realism makes miracles and the existence of God very interesting. For even if God revealed himself to me, and somehow proved he was not a particular delusion of my own mind - he revealed himself to me and a reliable person I knew - it could be that this God is just another manifestation of "The Matrix." All deities could be apparitions the way angels and ghosts were defunct programs in The Matrix. It becomes then impossible to prove the existence of not only God but anything except my own mind and my mind senses A or B if Anti-Realism is true - once again, in the metaphysical sense (what is) rather than the epistemological (what we can know in the anti-realist sense).
PS - know I've been gone a while. Been busy with class work. But call off the international search - I'm alive.