Given what you know about Christianity, what are logical reasons you won't become a Christian?

There isn't any concrete factual evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did happen, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. 

Such as?#28

Literally read the post dude. 

Biblical testimony actually supports its falsity. 

p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 

p2. Jesus has never experienced decomposition. (Acts 2:31: His flesh did not experience decay)

p3. Jesus never died. 

c1. Jesus did not resurrect 

Ergo, Christianity is false. 

Just because his flesh did not decay, doesn't mean he didn't die. God preserved his body. Look at the context of that verse. 

p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 

Flesh takes a few weeks to decay. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus stayed dead for weeks; in fact, it says the opposite.

Evil comes about from more ways than just free will. 

Evil doesn't mean "bad." Evil means "immoral" which requires someone to make an immoral decision. If by gratuitous evils, you simply mean bad things happening, then this doesn't contradict the Christian position.

extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence

Extraordinary means "highly unusual." Why do unusual claims require unusual evidence? Why not evidence of any sort? Most people believe in God, so atheism is the more unusual position anyway.

I didn't say decay I said decomposition.

1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
   

the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe

What you're doing is harassing everybody who answers.

There has been a point in my life where I wondered if He didn't exist, and all the evidence I've found points to His existence.

Please stop trying to create problems.

This debate isn't about trying to criticize people for their beliefs,

the title says "Given what you know about Christianity, What Are Logical Reasons You Won't Become A Christian?" Debate about that. 

I didn't say decay I said decomposition.

The verse you quoted said "his flesh did not decay." That's in line with Jesus only staying dead for a few days.

1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
   

When you say that gratuitous evil causes more harm than good, I assume you are referring to human suffering

the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe

Are you sure claims like that require extraordinary evidence? "Reality is real" has implications for everything in the universe, yet I think we're perfectly rational in accepting that without extraordinary evidence. Not to mention that "God doesn't exist" holds implications for everything in the universe, so everything other than agnosticism (per your framework) requires extraordinary evidence to accept.

the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"

the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes

epistemically extraordinary

the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"

Words have multiple reasonable meanings that are understood in context. "Decay" necessitates that some amount of decay has occurred. The term can also be translated as a "return to corruption." Not decaying could be a result of the embalming, though some people consider this a part of the miracle while others do not. Neither of these interpretations contradicts Jesus dying.

the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes

I reject the premise that God being good means that God must prevent something that is causing more harm than good... I reject that premise since the Christian position is that all humans deserve suffering.

epistemically extraordinary

Are you still defining extraordinary as "a truth impacting literally everything else in the universe"? Or do you mean something else? What criteria make something extraordinary, and why do those things require a lot of evidence?

1. My cat knocked my drink over. 
   
2. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
   

that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 

if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it

1. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
   

god is ontologically infinite

that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 

If death occurs without decomposition, it's still a resurrection, since that term simply refers to being brought back to life.

But I think you're reading too much into the semantics of this anyway. A reasonable reading of the verse isn't that Jesus didn't decay at all. 

if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it

If you want to define things that way, then sure. I would describe suffering as "just" in relation to what people deserve if we want to get into technical terms. It seems to me that if you can't prove people don't deserve those things, then the gratuitous evil argument isn't evidence against Christianity since we don't know that the suffering is undeserved.

1. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
   

I buy that this is less likely than a cat knocking your drink over since cats are known to do things like that, but if this claim were true I do not think it would require extraordinary evidence. NASA making contact with aliens would not be extraordinary evidence, but it would be sufficient to make me believe in aliens. I don't think the threshold is as high as you're putting it.

god is ontologically infinite

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure the scope of something is proportional to its probability. Otherwise, we should have a hard time accepting the existence of the sun, which is 864,000 miles wide.

 cells are still vibing

Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?

a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 

So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 

 cells are still vibing

Cells not being active isn't exactly the same thing as decay. Decay happens after death, at least that's the most obvious interpretation of the verse.

Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?

i.e. why doesn't everyone suffer? I've often thought that the more pressing question is why anything good happens to us at all. But there are explanations for this that are strongly implied. When asked why a man was born blind, Jesus says, “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” So some good things help God to achieve his final purpose; the destruction of the devil, the salvation of believers, and the eventual recognition by all mankind of their sinful nature. Some good things lead people to become more moral. But the necessity of punishment for sin and the benefits of good things happening must be weighed. What I expect you want is very specific criteria (i.e. suffering is just in x, y, and z circumstances.) I don't know what those circumstances are, but I don't think that's a reason to believe there aren't any, or that the Christian God couldn't be applying some weighting mechanism and optimizing his level of intervention. We can speculate, as I'm sure you will, but the existence of speculation doesn't undermine the premise.

a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 

If a few competing news channels all reported on the alien (Fox and CNN both giving similar reports), I think I would find that sufficient. I'd probably consider an announcement by NASA to be convincing on its own as well.

So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 

I understand your weighting mechanism, but I'm rejecting it as faulty. The sun doesn't require much evidence, despite being very large. I suspect you'd consider one person being able to fly to be much harder to believe than the existence of the sun, given similar amounts of evidence. But that violates the weighting mechanism you provided—the existence of the sun has much bigger implications than one person being able to fly. "More attributes" doesn't mean "more unlikely."

sort of the same as decay

all suffering and evil is good in the long run

you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one

epistemic believability

sort of the same as decay

But that's a semantic point and completely taking the verse out of context. The obvious interpretation is that Jesus didn't stay dead for long. Luke wasn't under the impression that Jesus never died.

all suffering and evil is good in the long run

I understand if this seems like I'm making an annoying distinction, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption about Christian doctrine that is unfounded. An all-good God behaves in a just matter—all good doesn't just mean maximizing the number of good things that happen or the amount of pleasure that occurs by any means necessary. I argue that it's just for God to allow suffering since humans deserve it. That doesn't mean those things are good. Your hidden premise is that it is unjust for God to allow bad things to happen, but I reject that premise.

you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one

Sure. But I don't agree that the standard is "extraordinary," which is hard to quantify in the first place.

epistemic believability

I feel like we're back to where we started. What makes God epistemically unbelievable?

The only criteria for heaven, is to be without sin.

And God didn't make these criteria, it just makes sense. God is perfect and cannot allow non-perfect people into a perfect place, because then he wouldn't be perfect, and that place wouldn't be perfect. 

Let's say I'm generous and grant this. Please demonstrate this creator is the character described in the bible, which has existed for less than 5000 years, while the universe is demonstrably between 13 and 14 billion years old. 

First of all, you don't grant this, because this is fact.

Second of all, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is 5000-, or 6000-year-old. 

If we look in revelation, it claims that 1000, years is like one day for God. This is implying that our perception of time is different than Gods. 

So, for God, the first 7 (or six if your being petty) days of creation, were days, but for us they could have been billions of years.