I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

You're trying to make it a black-is-white issue but that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about a situation where we do know the reality and a situation where we don't. It isn't a question of standing up or sitting down; it's a question of standing up or turning water into wine. Both standing up and sitting down are grounded in reality. Turning water into wine is not. Come on, you know the drill: reliable conclusions depend on true premises and sound reasoning. The weakness of religion is its lack of true (verifiable) premises. The reasoning behind religion may or may not be sound. In this context it would be more like, "you can have the best reasoning in the world but if you're reasoning from turtles your conclusions may vary." But it can mean different boundaries.

In context, you can't go into the room. There is no door between the natural and the supernatural.

Welcome to Square One. The supernatural is not an inference; it's a belief. Belief is what we (can) fall back on when no inference is possible.

GOD is pretty much defined as "there can be no evidence". It's a Catch-22 situation: if you have evidence, it isn't evidence of GOD. At best it's an image of GOD.It isn't a concept that I'm particularly comfortable with but it isn't difficult to understand.

There is always something that is beyond our capacity to define it.

You're conflating. Premises are essentially separate from the reasoning based on those premises. You can reason badly on good premises and you can reason well on bad premises.Reasoning based on the premise that gods exist can be perfectly sound - only the conclusions are suspect because the premise is suspect.

The truth of the premise is assigned by a separate reasoning process. For a given reasoning "session" (e.g. a syllogism) the premises and the reasoning itself are independent.

The mechanism is the same.I don't know what your point is or if you're being deliberately obtuse. What I'm trying to say is that religious people can use perfectly good reasoning - i.e. no fallacies - on premises that are not verified or verifiable.A bad conclusion can come from bad premises OR bad reasoning OR both. Bad conclusions do NOT automatically indicate either bad premises or bad reasoning. Bad conclusions only indicate that EITHER the premise or the reasoning is faulty.

Let's go back to the locked room mystery.You're in a room and the lights keep going on and off. You can't find a light switch in the room. You can't find a Clapper. You can't find a doorway to another room. You presume that the lights going on and off has a cause but you can't find a cause.The cause might be an invisible entity in the room using an invisible switch or an inaudible clap or it might be an entity in an adjoining room that you can't detect. With the information you have, you can't tell which it is or if it's something else. Some day you might find a hidden door with a man behind a curtain who wants you to bring him a broomstick - but for now the only information you have is that the lights go on and off.You can believe whatever you want about the cause but there is no explanation to accept.

Yes, foundations are fundamental but they're also fundamentally separate from what is built on them. We begin with premises and we draw conclusions based on those premises. Often we can only tell the validity of the premises from how well the conclusions match reality. There is no such thing as being "completely reasonable". That's why we have to rinse and repeat.

It's probably possible to be a theist without finding theism coherent.If there is no door between natural and supernatural, how can you define what's behind the door?

Sometimes you reach the end of the line and you can't make any more adjustments. That's when belief comes in.That's why I keep making a distinction between accepting what can be adjusted and believing what can not be adjusted.

What is beyond definition has no definable attributes. You shouldn't need a further definition of a door.If there is no explanation for what is happening inside the room, one possible postulate is that something is happening outside the room which has effects inside the room. If we can't find a door leading to the outside, when it comes to investigating what's outside we're screwed.

What's the difference between not needing to make any more adjustments and not being able to make any more adjustments? You're over-generalizing. Some religious minds refuse to adjust some faulty premises. "The" religious mind just doesn't stop when it runs out of verifiable premises.

I don't know if anybody is saying that. What I hear is that there may be some things that can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced and we call those things "supernatural". It's a term for what's outside the room. It's the paper that the Venn diagram is drawn on. You can't know that.