1. If God demands obedience from humans, then he should reveal Himself to humans.
2. God demands obedience from humans.
3. Therefore, God should reveal Himself to humans. (1,2 MP)
4. God does not, in fact, reveal Himself to humans.
5. If God does not, in fact, reveal Himself to humans, then this should frustrate human beings.
6. So, human beings should be frustrated by God not revealing Himself. (4,5 MT)

I don't think 5 follows. If God does not reveal himself to humans, it doesn't entail that human beings should feel frustrated. It's good that people have added that God has revealed himself in the Bible, but of course for God to reveal himself to all of humanity, He would have to do so continuously.

It seems that if everyone knew God existed, then faith in Him wouldn't be necessary. Yes,
we would have all the answers, possibly, to our theological questions and that would be less "frustrating". This would be comparable to the Garden of Eden, before the Fall.

1.) It is necessary to lack full knowledge of God to have faith.
2.) If God revealed Himself to all people, then faith wouldn't exist.
3.) God hasn't fully revealed Himself.
4.) Faith exists.

I think there is a flaw in your definition of wrong.
"Wrong as what is right in the short term". Many actions are right in the short term and the long term. Many actions are plainly wrong in the short term as well. Furthermore, if you are ranking "right in the short term" as what creates the maximum short term pleasure, I think that is plainly incorrect. Killing someone for short term pleasure (as revenge or whatever is used to justify murder as a short term pleasure) is still wrong.
1. Every person has natural rights.
2. One natural right is the right to your own life.
3. If everyone has the right to their own life then they necessarily don't have a right over anyone else's life.
4. Murder is taking the right over someone else's life.
5. Murder is wrong.

I am sure you would agree with this claim that "murder is wrong" but I am showing that something wrong in the long term is not right in the short term, even if it creates temporary pleasure.

Along with many of the comments above, I agree that your conclusions don’t necessarily follow. Especially “the right to bear arms is the right to kill” and “ the right to property is the right to theft”. If we are talking about what the United States of America considers “natural rights”, by no means did the Founding Fathers affirm the right to bear arms and the right to property along with killing and theft. Murder and theft are against the law, showing that they are not thought of as “human rights”.
I also do not see how lying becomes a virtue in any way.

Some food for thought:

The Christian Decalogue is a sum of commandments. God gave His people free will.
1. If God gave His people free will then they have the right to choose.
2. The right to free speech, to bear arms, to freedom, to property, and to freely worship are all choices.
3. God gave His people the right to free speech, to bear arm, to freedom, to property, and to freely worship.

Of course lying, killing, oppressing others, stealing, and idolizing are all wrong and the law has attempted to limit those wrong choices. If anything human rights to all these freedoms allow a great God given gift: the gift of free will.

1.) Iff God made Jack choose to drink the beer at t1, then choice of action action would be a product of determination.
2.) God’s omnipotence gives Him power to look at the future.
3.) Jack chooses to drink the beer at t1.
4.) God has knowledge that Jack chose to drink the beer at t1, at t0.
5.) Jack acted upon his free will at t1 and God has knowledge of what his choice will be at t0 without intervening in any way.
6.) Jack’s beer drinking at t1 is not a product of determinism.

In this situation we are not tied to saying that God forced Jack to drink the beer, showing that a future, freely willed act is possible. Jack can choose to drink the beer at t1 and God can have knowledge of this act at t0.

" 1. If hell exists, there would be Biblical evidence for its existence, or it exists only conceptually in the minds of human beings due to misinterpreting the Bible.
2. Things that only exist conceptually in the minds of human beings do not actually exist.
3. There is no Biblical evidence for the existence of hell.
4. Therefore, hell does not actually exist." @Francesco di Piertro

I believe you are correct in your conclusion that Hell does not actually exist, but your reasoning is incorrect. I believe, that Hell does not exist as a physical place-- which it seems Ben hints as a possibility. Below is my thought process...

1. Jesus Christ is the Savior
2. If Jesus Christ is the Savior, He had to SAVE us from something.
3. Humanity seems to inevitably sin.
4. Jesus Christ was crucified to save us from our sins.

1. Sin is evil.
2. If humans sin, they are evil.
3. Therefore, humans are evil.

When God created humanity, He said “It is Good”, just as He did with everything else referenced in the Old Testament. If God created us as “good” then how are we evil as well? It seems reasonable to say that good cannot be evil. The explanation for humanity being both good and evil, even though God created us as good, is the gift of free will.

1. If we were guaranteed to be good then people would not have free will since we would not be able to choose between good and evil.
2. People are not guaranteed to be good and can choose between good and evil.
3. Therefore, people have free will.

Heaven and hell are not physical places, rather our choice to be in relationship with God or not to be.

Regarding Premise 1: Reasons for evil and the existence of Hell are explained in the Bible. Original Sin is understood to be what broke a perfect world. When Adam disobeyed God, he chose to strain his relationship with God, choosing evil over good. Choosing not to be in a relationship with God is Hell. Heaven is being in perfect communion with God.