Proven faith

Interesting analysis. This time I won't start with the letter "Aleph".
If a situation were described in which a philosopher proves to me in an intellectual way why my belief is based on a lie, refutes every theological claim I have in an intellectual/philosophical/logical way.
And for every excuse I/a rabbi responds to, he makes it 10 more difficult (let's say, and it's possible that there are no answers to all his questions), should I then "not believe"? "not keep the commandments"?

I see that there are believers in the religious community who, even if they are given 1000 difficult questions and have no answer, and it does seem that their belief contradicts reason, will still continue to "believe"...
I think to myself that ideally: a person should go and establish his belief in life based on reason and logic.
It follows that if they prove to me that religion is not a great thing but only fiction and a beautiful story (and I will do very in-depth research, even for several years if necessary) - in truth, I should not believe it...
What does the rabbi think about this?

I don't understand the question of whether you should believe. Ask yourself whether you believe or not. It is a decision that a person must make (see column 661). Regarding the meaning of evidence, see column 654. There I explained that it is not true that evidence is necessarily a decision that must be made.