It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.
As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps. There will ALWAYS be more things that are true than you can ever prove.
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/This does not mean we should reject science. Far from it we should embrace science and the multitude of questions it can answer while acknowledging its inherent limitations. If you trace any scientific fact back far enough, you will find a series of basic assumptions that the "fact" ultimately rests upon. These assumptions are inferred to be true but cannot be proven.
Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one. What it amounts to in an argument that we cannot infer any knowledge when all knowledge ultimately traces back to inferred knowledge. You are indirectly arguing that we can never believe in or know anything.
This is essentially a very roundabout argument for epistemological nihilism.
Nihilismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NihilismNihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.
Upthread I highlighted Bruce Charlton's writings on why nihilism is a very bad choice. If you are interested I recommend reading them.
See:
Metaphysical AttitudesAtheist often grossly over simplify this question and pretend the question is only about whether God exists or not and nothing else.
This is very much the wrong way to look at it. Ultimately this is a question of whether one can build a coherent worldview from first principles and apply that to the world and ones life and then live by it.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that this task is beyond ones ability. Most people even many religious people do this.
However, when one makes the choice to sit on the metaphysical sidelines one is accepting the position of a lemming in society. Lemmings let external forces make the big choices for them. These external forces may be the media or a political party or even a religious authority that is blindly followed. Other lemmings refuse all outside influences and choose to be entirely ruled by their base genetic code their animal passions and desires.
Belief in God is the keystone of a rational and sustainable worldview that elevates and sustains mankind. This worldview is largely responsible for the progress we have made so far.
See
Religion and Progress I choose not to be a lemming and believe this is the most rational and logical choice.