Your position is irrational because you posit a magical being that you cannot demonstrate to be true. If your position was tentative I would not find you irrational. If you said "I hope there is a god" then I could accept that. But "There is a god, whether or you accept it or not" is irrational. You have not demonstrated the truth of it.<quoted text>
Of course He had reason to create us. Just like the reason we have children: to continue our species and have joy with a family. We are His children. We know our children are going to mess up, a lot, but that doesn't keep us from having children. We know they will be exposed to even more crap than we were exposed to, but we choose to have children anyway. I'm not sure where your logic is in that statement.
Why is my position irrational just because you can't refute it, or understand it?
You are God's child, whether you accept it or not.
Also, as we discussed before, the parent analogy is not accurate. God is perfect, we are far from perfect. But no parent is perfect. Kids are humans that come from humans. We have the DNA to demonstrate it.
Again, where is god's DNA? Show me that, then we can talk.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that your particular version of god is...weird. I've encountered a ton of theology and this idea that god is physical, has a body, is imperfect...is not standard. At all. You are arguing for a magical entity that is not all powerful. And I think that is going to be the hardest possible version of god for you to justify. Such a god would by all measures of logic leave some kind of trail we could follow to discover it.
And not a faith trail. I'm talking about hard evidence. Show me that.