Being Agnostic Is More Logical Than Being Christian

I grew up as a devout evangelical, and I still try to live my life as if there is a god.  Though when I considered the facts and the evidence, I was forced to change my stance on the issue.

I intend to prove my case through the following premises:

Agnostic - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Christian - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian

Pro must prove that it is most logical to withhold belief in Christianity, while Con must prove it is most logical to place certainty in the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of a christian god.

Would You Believe This?
Perpetual motion is impossible due to its violation of the laws of physics, or that what was formerly believed. 2,000 years ago there was a man who invented a perpetual motion device.  You want to see the invention? Sorry, it was a one-time thing. Good news though; there were hundreds of witnesses. Bad news; you can't talk to them, they're very dead. Fortunately for us, there are written accounts... but unfortunately there are only four of them. And they used each other as sources. And they were written decades after the occurrence.

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.

That leads me to my second point. If god is real, why doesn't he give us an undeniable amount of evidence?

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? 

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?

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.

Whatever hell is like, the bible makes clear one thing: It is NOT a fun place to be. I don't understand how someone can be perfectly contented in heaven while their loved ones suffer in hell for eternity. "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:46

If you were to be born into a Buddhist family and grew up retaining that faith, while living an extremely moral life, you would be eternally punished according to the bible. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18. Why is this something that should be eternally punished? On that matter, how is eternal punishment for finite crime ever fair, whatever that crime may be?

The Holy Bible