Two questions from different topics in matters of faith

1. Thank you.
2. In the Manitou video, Manitou's claim is that a person cannot, with his mind, come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible exists, who is the God of the Bible? It is the same Aloha who can speak to people “And the Lord spoke to Moses’ and therefore a person cannot truly believe if he is not a prophet = one who has experienced the encounter with the same thing he believes in.
There are actually two questions here
A. Does the rabbi think it is correct to say that it is not possible to reach with reason a belief in a God who has revelation?
B. Does the rabbi agree with the statement that there is no faith without revelation, and in fact, whoever is not a prophet does not believe?

According to this (crooked) logic, the average person cannot believe in physics, biology, and mathematics, because they know nothing about these fields, and most people also have no ability to understand them.
In fact, it is also impossible to believe that Napoleon existed because none of us can meet him.

Haha, combining the two claims, we can accept Descartes' anthropological evidence.
If we cannot believe in him and yet we believe, we have accepted Descartes' evidence. (Because Napoleon is not something other than essential, but can be understood by the power of the imagination)
And if we can believe, then Max, we are left with the evidence of Rabbi Michi.

I think there is a difference between belief in God and belief in facts. Belief in God is a belief that I cannot see with my own eyes (in terms of nature as a whole, it is not something that nature necessarily shouts about, a fact that is disputed). On the other hand, belief in physics and the like is a belief that is "found here," that I don't need someone from outside to discover because it is on the same plane of my life.

Irrelevant division. Apply the logic you presented to this and you will find that you get exactly the same thing.
In other words: God is also present here in the world, but only prophets can meet him. Completely analogous in terms of the logic of the argument you presented.

Right and..? God is present and only prophets can meet Him – I am not a prophet = I cannot meet.
I don't understand what the problem is with this? That's exactly the argument, because God only reveals Himself to the prophets – I can't truly believe it.

It seems I'm messing up my words here.
Here's the equivalent argument: Is the theory of relativity true in reality?! You're not a physicist = therefore you can't encounter it and understand it. Conclusion: There is no theory of relativity (at least for you).
As far as I'm concerned, we're done. This is really getting a bit repetitive and stupid.

(It should be noted that the direction is exactly the opposite of the “compositions.” Manitou relies on faith in the Torah to establish faith in God, and in the compositions, establishing faith in the Torah relies primarily on the existence of God and the expectation that He will will something.)