Irrational and illogical are two different things. When it comes to Theism or Atheism, their basis are identical. Each is only based on an impression of the world; does it seem volitional or not, do I sense presence or not? That’s it!
We reason after the fact of impression. We know logic doesn’t entail truth anyway, and tells us nothing about the world. Given there are sound arguments for and against God, we know logic is not what matters in selecting one argument or the other. It is that impression of volition, or the impression there isn’t volition, in the world driving our thinking.
We also concede that saying God is imminent means God is a material fact, but this only makes “god” a synonym for “nature”. Saying God transcends means “god” is a word whose meaning isn’t derived from knowing God but of personifying that volitional impression, and knowing as a result, that god-talk has no literal referent but us and the world.
So, what’s to say then but that god-talk, we know for certain, is meaningful. We can reason also that why it is meaningful isn’t because there is or isn’t a God, since if there isn’t, we’re still certain of its human worth. Our efforts then are not to ask questions we can’t answer or try to convince ourselves we can genuinely choose what to believe; because we can’t! The task is only to ask why God, if there is one, allows us to define Him, unchecked. The answer has to lie in personification and trying to be at one with our best selves.
The question isn’t whether or not there is a God, but instead, why have we created the ones we have.
At least however, we know that belief and doubt are based on irrationality, that both are warranted, entitled dispositions, and that reasoning does nothing important for us, but leaving the question with a better idea how we will live, having answered it, does.
Just a thought.