Being Agnostic Is More Logical Than Being Christian

• The evidence does not live up to the claim.
• The problem of suffering.
• The incompatibility of heaven and hell.

• God is omnipotent and all loving.
• An omnipotent and all loving god wouldn't permit such terrible misery for his creations.
• Therefore, an all-powerful all-loving god is illogical. 
  

• Axioms: These are self evident principles that demonstrate the fundamentals of reality and knowledge. Such as: A thing is what it is.
  
• Reasoned to conclusions: these are the demonstrations coming from our ability to reason and give conclusions exempt from physical evidence if the conclusion is of such a nature that physical evidence is simply not in question.
  
• physical experience: This has its place in knowledge, namely where it all starts but that does not mean it ends there. It is absurd to deny the reality in front of us. If we deny this part of knowledge then we deny the thing by which we began to know, which logically means we deny everything.
  
• A proper faith: Faith is to accept as true based on the word of another because of their authority or credibility. For example: I have no way of knowing that I was born on March 12th except by the word of my parents. 
  

1. Argument from Actuality: It is reasoned to knowledge that being is divided into complete being (what is), or incomplete being (what could be). According to the principles of causality, what is incomplete being must be made complete being by something already having a complete being because something cannot come from nothing. In order to maintain the principles of causality without falling into absurdity, we must posit a first complete being. Not only must it be complete being, it must be purely complete. This pure "what is" we call God.
   
2. Argument from Participation: All being is a participation in being itself i.e. this pure "what is" God. This means that God has in their perfection those things that elevate us to greater being, namely personhood and intelligence. ( I will include here volition but because that is its own argument I will not explain it.) This would mean that God is a person and is intelligent.
   
3. Argument from the gradation of being: There are different degrees of being. What has more "what is" so to speak has greater being. For example those things with life have more being than a rock. By analogy, those things that lack being have more of "what could be" and so we can say by analogy that since God does have any "what could be" as shown above, He would therefore have no matter/composition (these things imply by their very nature that they have "what could be"). Having no matter/composition means that He must be spiritual. Spiritual means above matter. It does not necessarily mean incompatible with it.
   

The evidence does not live up to the claim.

Obviously, you're going to need more evidence than that to prove something impossible happened. I do not dispute that there is indeed some evidence for the resurrection, however, I do not believe that this evidence comes anywhere close enough to prove that something as miraculous as the resurrection occurred. Something that cannot be recreated or tested. Proving someone rose from the dead is a massive burden of proof.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness.

What motive does god have to hide from us? It should be the other way around. If god wants to be in relation with us, then why is his only method of communication some passages that were written hundreds of years ago and that are greatly contested historically? If god's only means of communication is the bible, then why did he allow it to be so flawed? Take the death of Judas for an example. In the book of Acts he died from a fall. In the book of Mathew he hanged himself. 

Another related issue. If two people are praying about, say, abortion, they can come out of it with two very different ideas of what god wants. Why doesn't he answer our prayers clearly and directly? 

The Problem of Pain

You've heard this one before, and  that's because it's a good one. 

• God is omnipotent and all loving.
  
• An omnipotent and all loving god wouldn't permit such terrible misery for his creations.
  
• Therefore, an all-powerful all-loving god is illogical. 
  

The Free Will Response

Many Christians believe suffering is a necessary byproduct of freewill. Then what about cancer and natural disasters? Why would god allow such seemingly meaningless pain?

The Relativity Response

Others argue that in a world where pain is not known, pleasure can not be appreciated. This argument is forgetting that god would be omnipotent. A hurdle like this would be effortless to cross. An omnipotent being could absolutely make it so people could appreciate joy without their child getting cancer first.

"You cannot have physical evidence of say, Christ walking on the water, here and now because it is a historical claim. This would be akin to me denying the holocaust because I do not see any jews burning in furnaces here and now." 

"By the way, there is nothing against reason to say that a dead man can rise again to life. You cant recreate a resurrection. That is why we call this an article of faith."

"The Bible is also not His only way to communicate with us."

To address Pro's last point quickly, We go to Heaven or Hell by our own choice. God ensures all souls get the necessary means to reach Heaven. The last part about loved ones in Hell needs more space to discuss. I will post it in the comments.

"We have to establish they were written by those who say they wrote it.https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels"

"Thirdly and lastly, There is no reason to think these men were crazy or deluded and therefore there accounts are accurate and can be followed. The accounts do not lose credibility with time so there is no reason to doubt what is being said is what happened."

"And it is intellectually dishonest to a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences in these accounts related to Jesus Christ."

It's seems you're saying that resurrection requires an article of faith, meaning it can't be completely justified by logic. Historical claims, especially ones of such significance as the resurrection, requires equally significant historical evidence.

Divine Hiddenness 

"The Bible is also not His only way to communicate with us."

 Could you please specify the other ways?

Still, why would god allow his holy book to be so imperfect? I again extend the example of the contradictory account of Judas' death. If god wanted us to come to him through logic, then he would have made the evidence he left us pure and not so prone to controversy.

      I still do not understand how finite crime (in this case ignorance) merits an eternity of punishment. I also do not understand why simply being ignorant warrants any punishment at all. If someone grows up is Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the Muslim faith, and truly believes they are following a godly and moral path, what have they  done wrong?

This argument provides compelling evidence both for and against the apostles being the authors.

"At the end of the day, the gospels are still anonymous... none of the evidence for or against these authors is 100% conclusive." 

I would argue that simply citing this article does not fully establish the claim. 

Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author.

"Thirdly and lastly, There is no reason to think these men were crazy or deluded and therefore there accounts are accurate and can be followed. The accounts do not lose credibility with time so there is no reason to doubt what is being said is what happened."

What does however damage the credibility are things such as the contradicting accounts of Judas' death. There are other contradictions but this one is by far (in my opinion) the most prevalent. For a claim as big as the resurrection, we need very trustworthy evidence.

"And it is intellectually dishonest to a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrences in these accounts related to Jesus Christ."

I'm not ruling out the supernatural, but only extremely skeptical of it. Going back to the perpetual motion example; if something denies our current understanding of scientific knowledge, then I'm going to need a lot more evidence than just a few accounts to convince me. 

"Judas went to the high priest, threw the money down, they told him to go and buy a field with it since they could not put it in the collection since it was the price of blood. Judas then hung himself in the field he bought and when he was cut down his bowels burst asunder."

"Through the Church He established. Through what we call our duty of state. Through mishaps, mistakes, legitimate orders from legitimate superiors, Through circumstances in our life that point us to do something versus another thing, etc... to name a few "

"Like I said, God gives the grace for every soul to save themselves. If through some ignorance that soul does not recognize that grace it does not necessarily mean they go to hell."

I am not requesting physical evidence for your claim, merely enough historical evidence. You've stated that the bible is that historical evidence, and that we have to trust it through faith, which you have defined "... to accept as true based on the word of another because of their authority or credibility." The evidence for something as extraordinary as the resurrection definitely needs to be absolutely credible, which you have not proven the bible to be.

In this account Judas hangs himself and then the priests take the silver and buy a field. We can be sure it's the priest's purchase as Judas probably wouldn't want to buy a field to bury strangers in. This passage leaves no doubt it was not Judas who purchased the field.

The word "acquired" implies the field was under not only purchased by, but also under the possession of Judas. Additionally, it's extremely strange that if Judas did hang himself it wasn't even mentioned. That is a very major detail to skip over so seamlessly. Why would they mention him being cut down without even mentioning him being hanged?

Imagine for a moment the Catholic Church from the perspective of an outsider - Magdalene laundries, absolving sins for money, a whole lot of naughty touching, and a plethora of other incidents. You can see why the church looks less like the instrument of god and more like something to stay far away from. It's done more than enough to cause people to doubt its authority. 

"Like I said, God gives the grace for every soul to save themselves. If through some ignorance that soul does not recognize that grace it does not necessarily mean they go to hell."

The Bible disagrees.

"Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." - Galatians 2:16

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." - Romans 3:28