No. of questions

Thanks for the detail, sorry but I don't understand answer A. If you were to claim that the evidence in itself is absolute, I would understand (but disagree 🙂 that this is how God wanted to reveal himself and give his teachings and that this is his right, but since the evidence is partial and we are dealing with matters of logic and probability and as you wrote in the fifth notebook
that the argument from the evidence is partial and only joins other arguments that ultimately create a certain probability, my logic says that it is unlikely that on the one hand God reveals himself and wants everyone to recognize him, and on the other hand reveals himself in a way that some of those seeking revelation really did not find him, I understand that your logic is different (and this is actually our discussion, what happens when logic differs from person to person). Do you have a way to clarify for me why your thought is more correct than mine? And if not, if in my opinion this claim alone outweighs the probability of your proof (and there was no revelation anyway), is there anything I can do about it or is there no way I can be convinced that this is different logic and that's it?

P.S. Since there is no category of psychology, I will ask you here, do you have an explanation for why it is usually clear to a person who grew up in a religious place that there is a God and he is unable to understand the claims that everything simply existed/was created on its own, while for a secular person it makes sense? I come from a religious home, I have heard their claims and I think they are delusional (and the same way some think about those who believe in God), it is as if our minds do not work the same way.
Thank you very much

If you think this difficulty, which is quite weak in my opinion, is the deciding factor, it means that the arguments in favor of God are fundamentally weak in your opinion and that you are actually in doubt. If you are in doubt, then I have nothing to say to you, because really any difficulty, no matter how weak, will decide the outcome. I did not discuss this here. I do not doubt and I do not think there is any significant doubt. I wrote the explanation for this in the first book of the trilogy. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense, but you probably disagree with me. I cannot rewrite the entire book here, and there is no point in doing so.

As for the N.B. It is like someone who has not studied quantum theory and when you tell him that there is a Schrödinger cat, he wants to hospitalize you. There are claims that you need to know and get used to in order to accept them. The claim that there is a God sounds delusional and absurd to people because they were not raised in it, and they are anyway pushed aside by everything else. A person who grew up in a religious upbringing sees this claim as possible and legitimate, and in any case has no problem adopting it if it solves philosophical difficulties for him, etc. The secular person also finds himself in difficulties but is not willing to acknowledge the conclusion that there is a God because this argument seems to him to be unfounded. There is a clear asymmetry here between the religious and the secular.