Help with hesitation

Hello, I’ve been going through all sorts of thought processes lately and I’m undecided whether to believe or not. [I come from a somewhat strange religious background]
Ultimately, because of arguments [some of which are yours] I decided that it is likely that there is a God, things like the complexity of the world, and the fact that we have free choice even though the existence of such a ‘I’ who chooses must be something outside of nature.
But regarding the Torah, I honestly hesitate, and there are arguments for and against this:
Reliability issues
1) There are many things in the Torah that contradict science head-on [the creation of the world, the flood, the rabbit and the hare chewing their cud, perhaps even the matter of predation]. Reconciling everything with a miracle seems urgent, and on the other hand, reconciling it with a holy lie paints a very strange picture [a liar] and how do I know that He is not lying on other subjects? And in general, regarding the rabbit and the hare, it doesn’t work so well. Although they were probably once thought to chew their cud, God had no special interest in mentioning it [it’s not even really a verse required for a mitzvah] and it is still written with chewing cud. The only way out is to say that the Torah really, really doesn’t care about facts, only about actions, and has no problem with educational lying based on popular stories or incorrect scientific information when the ultimate goal is only actions without any consideration for any factual information. It’s terribly, terribly strange and it’s hard for me to believe that anyone ever perceived the Torah this way before the Enlightenment period at the earliest.
2) Regarding the Oral Torah, one needs good arguments to be convinced, but this is not really an option in my opinion, because the Written Torah without some accepted interpretation is very difficult to get along with, but there are some suspicious things in it that suggest vested interests have been put in there, and it is a bit difficult to discern what is what. On the other hand, there are things that are very far from the simple, and yet there does not seem to be any visible interest in them [especially in the commandments that are considered as a man to his God].
3) There are various fulfillments in the Bible that seem like a very late thing to explain as non-fulfilling, and this somewhat raises suspicion that the original concept of the Torah is that God is physical. While it could be said that this was also so that they could deal with it at the time the Torah was given, here we return to the strange concept of divinity that is in problem number 1.
4) One last thing is the difficulties of biblical criticism, some of which are a bit suspicious. On the one hand, much of what is there seems terribly unprofessional [and archaeology over such long distances is nothing more than speculation]. But studying the styles of language and such sometimes gives the feeling that there might be something to it. And if the Torah has been changed, how can I know what is different and what is not?
Evidence of reliability
1) I talked about this with a friend, and I became convinced that there are very unusual things in the Torah in relation to its time. If they were written by a person, he would have had to be very creative and have a religious and legal perspective that was unprecedented in his time [I saw a comparison between the laws of Hammurabi and the Torah. Ultimately, in the Torah, the husband is not the one who decides whether to kill his adulterous wife, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons,” contrary to what is said, and more].
2) The religious concept is also very different from the concept of idolatry, in that God is not “lenient” but demands justice and true repentance, and in principle He does not take bribes – which is a huge gap from what was common in this period and in the period long after it. Another thing is the very true monotheistic concept that the other gods are basically nothing, and not only are they forbidden to be worshipped, but they do not exist [there are variations that seem a bit strange, but ultimately in the creation of the world there is only Him].
3) The Torah promises many miracles [shmita, sota] and in principle there is no visible interest of an ordinary person who wants to convince believers to join his religion to tell them not to work in the field for an entire year, or to promise a miracle that could not happen in something as extreme as everyone’s food.
4) A few other things that are very unusual for the period, such as the perception of nuns [specifically wine and shaving and not talking like sexual relations or meat]. The husband’s duties towards his wife, and more. I emphasize that this is not a moral argument but a factual argument – it is not so likely that the person who wrote such a thing was an ordinary person at that time because it goes against all the perceptions of the entire world on these things.
5) There is an interesting scientific fact, and it is that the upper limit of human life naturally is more or less 120 years, a lifespan that according to science at that time, probably not a single person had reached, and there was no way to know it, not so fundamental, but a little confirmation from the side.
6) And the sixth is that history shows that the people of Israel really went through very impressive things – they were exiled, murdered, and returned and recovered both physically and religiously, everything is relative but still, like no other people of this size have ever managed to do. I don’t put my finger on any specific event that I think is a miracle, but the general timeline is very impressive and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some divine guiding hand in this. Of course, this doesn’t completely guarantee the correctness of the Torah because it could be that God just wants us to exist because we’re pretty much the same way, but it’s plausible that a people who have been exceptional throughout all generations in all sorts of things and God wants them to exist also has some truth in their religion.
7) Ultimately, I do think that there are some actions that God wants us to do and in principle there is no way to know about them without revelation from Him what they are, even what happened. The categorical imperative is a very partial rule because you can put in it pretty much whatever you want as long as it is consistent. And because emotions are also inconsistent, even then the best revelation is the Torah because in any case I have to believe that it happened even if I am a Christian or a Muslim, then we will already be Jewish. I do not know of a revelation that is separate from this with a set of rules that is also truly agreed upon in large parts of the world that it happened.
 
In short, this is what I’ve managed to think of so far. I’d be happy if you could comment on whether I’m wrong, whether you think certain arguments should be given different weight. I assume you’re not entirely objective because you’re still a scholar, but not terribly so, and I did get the impression that you’re a smart person.
 
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.