Is believing in God rational?

But do you agree that the question “Who created it like this” requires an explanation - why assume that there is someone? It is true that according to the principle of causality, there must be a reason for things, but at the very beginning of the investigation of this matter there are several options - it could be God, you said in the debate if I remember correctly (not an exact quote) “In order to overthrow what I said you have to show that it is not logical”, very logical and? A solution should of course be logical but it is not enough for it to be true, let's say a murder mystery - there are several logical options - maybe it was his neighbor who had a dispute with him who murdered him, maybe he committed suicide because they found all kinds of texts he wrote that hint at depression, maybe it was a random accident that happened by mistake… maybe and maybe and maybe… it is all very nice and good and beautiful and logical, but it still needs to be shown that it is true.
When it's a religion, it's even stronger because there's such a long process that needs to be demonstrated - there's a reason for the world>The reason is that there's someone who created the world>This someone is a spiritual entity>And not just an entity that created but an intelligent and superior entity that wants things from its creatures>This entity is the Jewish God….
And of course you can break it down further and further, I broke it down roughly just to explain my intention.

So we concluded that the discussion of the nature of the laws of nature is irrelevant. The question you raised has been answered. Now you raise another question.
The physico-theological argument deals solely with one question: Is there something/someone who created the universe? Here there are only two possibilities, not several: yes or no. The claim that there is is much more reasonable, as you yourself agree in the first message (otherwise why discuss the nature of the laws) and here as well.
Who is that entity? Does it want something from us? What is this ”something”?? None of this is related to the physico-theological argument and therefore we did not touch on it in the discussion with Franco (it was agreed in advance that this is a different question that we will not deal with there).
If you would like to see the rest of the road to Jewish religious commitment, you are welcome to read the fifth conversation in my book, The First Found.

The problem is that in the argument for religious obligation you base it on the fact that it is likely that if there is a being who created the world, then it will require us to behave in a certain way.
This is one of the central claims that you give a name that forms the basis for our expectation of receiving revelation.
This claim in itself requires an explanation, and I have not been able to understand what it is.

The question was about the discussion with Franco. If you are asking about the first statement, see there. I explained it in detail. In any case, this claim does not stand on its own.