Beyond the currently empirically definable. Such discoveries are a continual process and not an end point which we've already achieved.
Of course. But as I think I've made clear enough, I'm talking about something fundamentally impossible to detect empirically. That objection, though you've raised it several times, is missing the point. Or so I think, anyway.
I suggested that the reason is subjective to the beliefs of the person making the judgement. Those of more religious leanings appear to believe there has to be a reason and others appear to believe there's no such requirement.
But, as I'm fond of pointing out, the fact of disagreement doesn't show that it's a subjective matter. It does nothing of the sort. It's always possible that one of the two groups is wrong. In my opinion the latter group has it wrong, but I don't expect you to accept that straight off.
As I stated above, I consider my personal beliefs to be rather irrational. As, while I believe it, there is no scientific evidence indicating the belief is warrented.
'Rational' doesn't mean 'scientifically warranted'. You can have rational beliefs that have nothing to do with science. This bizarre conflation of science with reason that we sometimes see... I just don't get it.
Others are perfectly welcome to have equally irrational beliefs if they so wish and if they also acknowledge the limitations of such beliefs. The issues arise when some, such as those who believe their alien soul was previously trapped within a volcano by an evil intergalactic tyrant for example, demand that others accept this belief as rational.
While the scientologist perspective, otherkin, etc., are not beliefs I would consider necessarily rational (for I am aware of no particularly convincing rational argument for those things), I do take issue with the implication that theism and supernatural belief are inherently irrational things. I consider myself firmly in the camp of reason, though that might say more about me than it does about reason...