The revealing argument against naturalism

B.E.
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask whether the method of the revelatory argument against naturalism:
Is the conclusion of the argument so that to justify the thinking,
A. It is necessary that rationality be based on belief in a coordinating being so that we have an [immediate] encounter with him. ("Pure" theological view)
B. Or it is sufficient to show that we have premises from which its existence can be deduced. (For example, by a cosmological or physio-theological argument, let's say).