Question

 
I watched your debate with Aviv Franco on rational belief. Aviv argued at the beginning of his case that if we claim there is a computer under my table, then I could believe it because I know computers and it is rationally possible. But if you tell me there is a dragon under my table, then I would not believe it, because reality teaches me that there are no dragons—and this is supposedly analogous to God, since there is no evidence for His existence, so He is presumed to be like a dragon. Now I want to ask whether that comparison is not itself a mistake. True, God has not been revealed to any of us, but unlike a dragon, which is an invented creature, God has a history of belief and even revelations that cannot be disproved, whether because they happened in the past or because they are simply not falsifiable. God does not contradict any scientific assumption known to us, unlike a dragon, whose very description is impossible in reality. The point is that it is rational to follow a belief that has a historical basis, especially if it is the history of my own people, and it does not contradict science/reality. It is not proof, but there is no disproof here either. One can argue for a better life as an atheist who lives only according to his own understanding and intellect. But one cannot dismiss a life lived according to God without evidence that would negate it, and as we said, there is no such evidence. In summary, even if I do not disagree that there is no tangible proof for God, the atheist’s worldview is the worldview of a newborn baby who has never heard of his history or the way of his ancestors, and all he has is what he sees with his own eyes. Because regarding the scientific findings, the religious person also has to believe them. So now the question is: isn’t such a position, even without getting into “your fact isn’t enough for a rational person,” still sufficient for a rational person?