My apologies for the redundancy. It strikes me that I should add a point to the numbered portion of my last post, so I repeat that below to give context to the addition:
Let me try to be clearer.
1. Isn't the point of reducing the image of God to an obvious absurdity, as in these examples, to illustrate that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension?
2. Doesn't the premise that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension lead to the conclusion that they cannot be addressed by reason?
3. Does not the conclusion that the mysteries to which God is posited as the answer are beyond our comprehension cannot be addressed by reason leave entirely open the possibility that they may be addressed by faith?
4. Does not the recognition that we are dealing in the realm of faith rather than reason render any effort to attack a given view from a rationalistic perpective irrelevant?
This, of course, is not intended to suggest that there are not rationalistic arguments to be made on behalf of religion generally, or particular religions; rather, it responds to a specific rationalistic argument against religion.