A logical determination of the probability of belief given that there is disagreement about a matter

Peace and blessings, Rabbi,

First of all, thank you very much for all your work, I (and many other people) enjoy it and learn a lot from it. Truly a teacher for many confused people…

My soul in my question: Since ‘faith’ must be based on logical conclusions that stem from observations of phenomena in the world, I find myself in a logical/philosophical problem: Although I can – after studying and trying to do it honestly without being consciously influenced by my inclinations and the circumstances of my life (that I was born religious and am married to a religious woman with children and I am happy in a religious life…) – determine for myself that it does indeed turn out that there is a God and that He gave the Torah at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people and that we made a covenant with Him to keep His laws. And this is my decision, in my opinion, that the truth of these facts is truly the most reasonable explanation of all the options available to explain the phenomena I observe in the world (or perhaps these explanations are even “beyond a reasonable doubt” in my opinion). Although, it is also a fact that others, who also tried to reach the truth as best they could, just like me, reached different conclusions. This is inevitable according to the human situation, in which every person and their perception and ways of thinking are different due to their nature and environment. If so, how can I claim to say that my determination is truly the most reasonable, after all, I am also a human being and my ways of thinking are determined by my nature and environment, despite any conscious effort to analyze and judge things coolly and without prejudice. Why, logically, does it make sense to conclude that what seems most reasonable to me is really (=in the objective reality that I am trying to determine what it is) the most reasonable? After all, the other person who worked exactly like me came to the opposite conclusion, and what advantage does a person have in all his labor who works under the sun? I find it difficult to understand why I should trust my determination more than the determination of all the others who concluded differently from me.

Although, if what I say is true (and I hope not…), this leaves us in a rather ‘postmodernist’ place (unfortunately and sadly). For it is not possible, at least in these matters of theology (and indeed in many areas), to conclude logically about the essence of objective reality at all, and even on my logical determination is it not logical to rely more than on all other possible conclusions?! And if so, we have not found our hands and feet, and anyone will do whatever is satisfactory and pleasant and enjoyable in his eyes…

I would be happy to help you get out of this predicament.

Thank you very much.