Some insights.

Hello.
As someone who has read some of your books and articles, I wanted to say something.
Something very important.
I just finished watching your debate on the topic: Is belief in God rational? It was fascinating. Simply fascinating and amazing.
why???
At first I was a little disappointed, the feeling was that someone who didn’t know you might think the atheist was right because he was more confident and spoke in a more bombastic manner.
but:
A little after almost halfway through the debate, you stepped up and strongly insisted on your argument and did not give up, and the theist got confused and scattered to the point that he ran away to the topic of the transition from a philosophical G-d to the G-d that is revealed at Mount Sinai.
 
I have always had a difficult question from time immemorial:
 
How can a person (like me) without knowledge like you and without talent like you make a decision on complex issues like whether God exists?
After all, in the debate itself, all kinds of explosive words and scientific and philosophical knowledge were raised, and those who did not find the time, strength, or talent to study would not be able to decide.
So how do I decide???
 
I think I got an answer today:
Anyone who watched the debate could decide whether there is a God just by your body language!!!
i.e:
Anyone who watched until halfway through could say to themselves: It’s not certain that there is a God!
But those who, like me, continued to the end saw how this cute theist began to squirm and move from one objection to another until at a certain point his distress increased to the point that he threw his pen on the floor (in anger) to demonstrate the principle of causality, and escaped to the subject: the transition from a philosophical G-d to a commanding G-d that had nothing to do with the discussion.
His grim face and his movements lacking grace and composure showed that he was under pressure, and that his subconscious had sensed that there was someone more talented and perhaps right here who was shaking up his preconceived beliefs.
 
And regarding the claims themselves:
At the end of the day, I’m still learning this topic and will probably continue to learn for a long time, but also in terms of the arguments: you won for sure. (I know there’s no certainty, I meant that it’s very likely that you won)
Conclusions from the discussion:
1. There is the principle of causality. In the meantime, everyone is fine.
2. I do not learn this from reality, even though it appears in reality, but from reason. (See the parable of the triangle)
3. Since I didn’t learn this from reality, it would be rational to say that it also belongs outside of reality.
4. There is an objective distinction for complex reality, although I have not observed non-complex universes.
5. Infinite regression is not a satisfactory and logical explanation. An eternal world is rejected by the Big Bang theory.
Last point:
6. From complexity, there must be someone who composes the known matter, but on the other hand, the principle of causality must not apply to it (otherwise regression), and therefore it is probably a type of matter (call it “Bamba” from my side) to which the principle of causality does not apply, and if so, it is the first cause, and only because it is without a cause are we left with an explanation, which is certainly better than saying: I have no explanation.
Thank you very much.
Now, would I kill a cute Amalekite for donating a kidney to a person he doesn’t know?
not.
There is another way. But it is very likely that there is a God.
I would appreciate a response even though there is no question.