Question about a debate between the Rabbi and Aviv

I didn't understand what the problem was in Hebrew. Did I use the same Hebrew as in the debate? (There, by the way, the Hebrew was much more incomprehensible in some parts). I will try to briefly rephrase it in the discussion. Your conclusion was that it is more rational to believe in a cause because our logic does not depend on reality, but we impose it on it, and logic requires a cause. I ask. We know that everything is subjective, including our consciousness and logic, and that even today in science there is the possibility of a non-causal explanation - how do I determine what is more rational? Can I say otherwise than your conclusion, that it is more rational that I take the possibility that my logic is causal and that there is something beyond it that I did not cause?

Maybe you know all sorts of things, I don't. Logic is not subjective. And causality is not related to logic, even though both are a priori.

Kant argued:

All our knowledge is subjective in a certain sense — we do not see the “thing in itself” (noumenon), but only what we experience through the glasses of our consciousness (phenomenon).

These glasses include a priori categories, such as: causality, logic, space and time.

That is: logic is not a description of reality itself, but the condition without which we have no “reality” to perceive

And again: for Kant

causality is an a priori category of our cognition, as is logic.

Both are “glasses” through which we understand the world.

That is: causality is a kind of extension of logic into time and experience.

For Hume

he disconnected logic from causality.

In his opinion, logic can be true in itself (the law of contradiction, for example), but causality is just a habit – we are used to seeing events coming one after the other, and therefore “invent” a cause. - This is what I know. I asked my questions according to Kant, and therefore if his honor goes by day and I rule according to Kant, will my assumption be correct, in other words, is his honor's conclusion that it is more rational to believe in causality only according to day?

It has nothing to do with Kant. Logic is not related to phenomena and is not subjective. Regarding causality, Kant does think that it is a transcendental matter (i.e. a condition for our knowledge and not something about the world itself) and I disagree with him. His words are absurd. As I think I explained this in the series of columns 434 onwards.
Hume did not disconnect logic from causality because no one connected them. Hume claimed that causality does not have the physical component (causing) because it has no empirical basis. I explained this in my series of columns on causality.
I disagree with him either, and in my opinion causality is a claim about the world and not about us, and it also has an element of causing it.
You can rule as you wish. But even if it is only about our way of thinking (which is not true in my opinion), it still turns out that there is a God according to our way of thinking. Anyone who wants to argue that this is not true can reject all our conclusions about the world to the same extent, since they are all just our way of thinking.