>>1
Kant never mentionned whether he believed in god or not, he encouraged clergymen to use his works to rectify errors and guide the public and he defined metaphysics completely differently from what you seem to believe he has done. You also don't seem to have defined how you formed your opinion, which I believe the subject gives insights to.
It is apparent that all thoughts stem from physical sensations, including messages from the instinctive parts of our mind which are seperate from the thinking part and thus sensations. So for instance the good feeling you get seeing a naked woman is a sensation even though it is developped by a part of your brain.
The thinking part of your brain processes these sensations and long story short, there are base principles that arise purely through experience and from these there are the myriad of thoughts and ideas that can be generated. For instance mathematics, from the observation of apples on a tree the concept of frequency arises, this is called an a posteriori thought, if you were then to think about the different amounts of apples on different trees and try to think of ways to find the total amounts of appls you would generate ideas about counting, then numbers, then addition and so on. These are a priori thoughts. The languaged definition of a posteriori thoughts are a priori, the actual concept of sensations and observations are the a posteriori thoughts. For instance noticing the difference between the brown, green and red colours of the apple tree and it's apples. The concept that these are all colours, they are different colours and there are several red apples on the tree is an a posteriori thought.
All of this is practical thought, based on observations and sensations, however the mind is capable of creating a priori thoughts which are very loosely based on observations to the point where they cannot be conclusively proved. This is the result of flawed reasonning in the development of a priori ideas.
Whatever you think, for situations like this dogmas are eventually created to correct the situation. Since you cannot discover whether dogmas are true or not, they can only be criticised and their effects noted. For instance if a person believes in god and is a very kind loving person, this doesn't prove the existence of god, but it does add to the validity of the dogma through the same principles which allow reasonning to exist.
I think you were trying to put across the premise that science is based on the faith that you need evidence to prove things. Unfortunately you left it at that instead of continuing the examination, which would lead you to the conclusion, that it is a dogma, but it is effective. It is in this same way that god is a dogmatic concept and can only be judged by it's assumption or use as an approximation.
So, metaphysics is based on the reasonning generated by our interaction with the physical world which allow us to generate a priori principles, these are pure thoughts to a certain degree, the framework of how we compose and judge ideas. Science explains the physical world excellently, constructive empiricism is perhaps the only method of discoverring truths which can be considerred absolute concerning the physical world. However there are things which are apparently not part of the physical world which science cannot explain, which Kant oulined as the big 3, god, freedom and immortality.
I prefer to simply refer to it as 1, sentience. I exist, I think, I percieve are absolutely true, yet they have no evidence, and if we are to use reasonning we are forced to work from these answers down in order to look for their evidence, which goes absolutely goes against science which declares answers can only be found from the evidence. To a certain extent it seems we are organic super computers, if you tamper with someone's brain they lose some ability to think, they lose emotions or other effects, but even if in the future someone creates a sentient computer and knows exactly how it works, why it allows sentience to occur would still be a mystery. Since the science cannot yield any answers, the issue must either be examined to the point where a particular solution can be induced or we must try and test dogmas and place them under criticism to evaluate them in the hope of validating them or validating elements of their nature. It is here that god exists.
This can be applied to Pascal's wager and several of your ideas. However it appears god can never be anything more than an assumption, which many atheists have already displayed in that typical rude 4chan manner. I assume god exists sometimes, or that there is at least something that will look at my actions and decide I should live after death, though apparently this will not be the case. I am in effect an agnostic who assumes god doesn't exist, but recognises the fact that sentience is an unanswerred question.