that's not what I meant. Using your set of knowns and just your set of knowns it is just as likely that your wife/roommate moved them, that it's slipping your mind, or that a 6 inch tall fairy is moving them around. There is nothing that goes against reason, using just your set of knowns in that situation that makes believing there is a key fairy living somewhere in close proximity to your house that is moving your keys. Rationality has nothing to do with probability; it has to do with reason. Unlikely != irrational.
I agree that unlikely != irrational. Assuming something that's unlikely is, however, irrational to the degree that it's unlikely.
For example, is it not irrational for me to assume that tomorrow the sun will fail to rise? If I was flipping out thinking we'd all freeze, with no evidence to support it, wouldn't you slap me and say "Snap out of it!"? If I convinced millions of people that tomorrow we'd freeze, and we took over the government and started passing laws that supposed tomorrow the sun won't rise, wouldn't you be pretty upset about that? Wouldn't you fight against that irrationality? Or would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they're entitled to their belief, however irrational it may be."?
If you see "F=ma" written on a tree in nature, yes it's natural to assume someone wrote it there. Why? Because typically it's humans that write things. The simplest explanation is that some human carved it in a tree. This is called inductive reasoning. It doesn't allow us to prove that a human carved "F=ma" in the tree, but it allows us to assume so without evidence to the contrary.
If you see "F=ma" in nature, it's NOT natural to assume that some supernatural being scribbled that law down in some extra-dimensional space-book. Why? Because we don't have the experience that "Usually physical laws are created by a supernatural being" by which to make the inductive conclusion that "Probably this physical law was created by a supernatural being."
If you see a watch, you assume it was created by someone because usually mechanical things like watches are created by a human being
. It's not the case, however, that we have observed that usually physical laws are created by supernatural beings, and so probably this one is too.
Neither inductive reasoning nor deductive reasoning gives any reason to believe in a god, especially not in some particular god. I'd suggest you stop trying to use logic to back up your beliefs. If you insist on believing, then I suggest you do what many do and accept that you are choosing to believe something illogically.