Rational arguments as an influence on changing a position – failure

Peace and blessings,
I eagerly read your wonderful books (the new trilogy). The books are written much more successfully than the previous ones, and the mere transfer of ideas through dialogue is enough to create this difference. It is a pity that this dialogue did not carry over into the third part of the book.
In our case, in the first book you presented arguments to justify belief in God. And here I would like to challenge this point. What underlies the motivation to formulate arguments for proofs of God is simple: if it is good evidence, it will cause a change in position. Although I regret to disappoint you and many like you, man is not a rational machine. Man does not act according to his mind, certainly not in the significant decisions in his life and values ​​in general. I say this in a somewhat imprecise formulation: a man has an internal point where he feels a connection to something and thus has a position towards many things in the world. On this platform he justifies his positions. And in our case: a man who feels alienated in a strange way from the idea of ​​God, of choosing a people, from the idea of ​​the commandments of the Torah, etc. – will never be able to be convinced of the reality of God or evidence to prove the Jewish tradition. To reach such a situation, you need to do something else – make him connect to tradition or, alternatively, to the idea of ​​God – by creating some kind of experience in him or a feeling that these things are serious enough to justify them rationally. Therefore, the things you wrote will definitely not make these changes, because your words are written from a wrong perception.
I'll just give you an example to end the matter: Imagine that a close acquaintance of yours tells you that he is in a close relationship with the Queen of England and that they discuss burning topics together in letters and on the phone from time to time. Of course you will think that he is mentally ill or that something has happened to him. And if he brings you evidence of this? You will still refuse to believe it. You will interpret the evidence differently or try to explain why it is fake. What is the point of that? Because you have a prior position that claims that it is nonsense. And this is the prior position I am talking about…