1. If agnostic carries the idea that it’s reasonable to believe in a supernatural God, then there is no reason to be agnostic.
2. Agnostic carries the idea that it’s reasonable to believe in a supernatural God.
3. There is no reason to be agnostic. (MP, 1, 2)
Your argument is outlined as above. Premise 2 shocked me at first since I’m an agnostic and never thought about this idea before. But I still want to reject this premise for the following reasons. First, some agnostics just lack belief in God, which means that they don’t know who God is and what kind of things God will do. Take me as an example. I was born in China where there are no dominating religious beliefs. I didn’t think about and talk about God at home, in public, and in school, let alone having any belief in God. In this situation, I was not even presented with evidences in favor of and against God. How could I think it’s reasonable or unreasonable to believe in God? Second, agnostics do not carry the idea that it’s reasonable to believe in a supernatural God(take this God as traditional God with omni features). I would rather say they are uncertain about whether it’s reasonable to believe in a supernatural God on the basis of the evidences in favor of and against God. A case in point will be that there is a homicide case where you are presented with the evidences in favor of and against the suspect A. The agnostic position in this case will be neutral, indicating uncertainty in whether it’s reasonable to believe the suspect is the murder. You cannot say being neutral implies that beliefs in suspect as the murder is reasonable. When you claim that it’s reasonable to believe the suspect commits murder, it means that you are already persuaded by the evidences in favor of him as murder, which equals to the theists’ position with respect to God’s existence. Therefore, premise 2 is false and the argument is unsound.

1. If God is ultimately in charge of human life, then God’s existence is immoral.
2. God is ultimately in charge of human life.
3. God’s existence is immoral. (MP, 1, 2)
I summarize your argument above. You are troubled by God’s existence on the basis of Him as a creator and controller of human life. You think that God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being seems like a slave owner even though He has no incentive to cause evil. His existence instead of Himself is immoral means that the fact that there is such a being exist violates certain moral standards or values. There is a big difference between the immorality of God and God’s existence. If one condemns God as an immoral being, then God may commit immoral actions which violates moral standards (if they exist). The consequent in premise 1 doesn’t follow from the antecedent. Consider a boss of the company who controls his employees’ jobs, whether they get their salaries, whether they can still be on the position and not get fired, and all the works they should do. You are a workaholic who regard work as life and you have no choice but to work in this company for some reasons. Even though this analogy is not a perfect one, it still seems that the existence of your boss is not immoral. Maybe he sometimes asks his employees to work for extra hours and being strict on requirements for assignments. He indeed limits your control to your life just as a slave owner will do to their slaves. The most you can say to condemn him is that he is immoral, because of his immoral behaviors, rather than his existence is immoral.

For premise 2, in light of your experience with God, you feel like God creates you without your consent and everything you did, do, and will do is controlled by Him so that you are not free. By depriving your free will, God is ultimately in charge of human life. However, there are many other possibilities regarding whether God fully controls human life. God would deem free will as a good thing and let us have it even though he wants to control us for our own benefits. On the contrary, one may claims that if God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-perfect, then He would not allow us to suffer from evil. But we indeed suffer, and so he is not ultimately in charge of human life.

To conclude, the argument is valid but unsound since the antecedent of premise 1 does not entail the consequent and that premise 2 is not necessarily true.

Your points are as follows:
1. If free will exists, there is willful act that can ultimately originate within us.
2. If we are not eternal beings, there is nothing can ultimately originate within us.
3. Determinism is true.
4. The idea that we have free will is an irrational idea.
For 2, it equals if there is something that can ultimately originate within us, we are eternal beings. And what you want to argue is that:
1. If there is something that can ultimately originate within us, we are eternal beings.
2. We are not eternal beings.
3. There is nothing that can ultimately originate with us.
If what you are saying is that free will entails eternality, it seems that you presuppose determinism when you think this way since you are assigning an outcome as the property that we can’t have to rule out the existence of free will. For 3, it’s not necessarily true since free will can be compatible with determinism. An easy way to question determinism is that when someone punches your face, you should not blame him because he is not the ultimate source of his actions or he does not have the ability to do otherwise. Free will, the ability to do otherwise, is necessary for moral responsibility.

There are only two options that are, ultimately, source of decisions we execute.
It is either God's decision, or it is God-induced randomness. — Henri

Follow your line of determinism, the ultimate source is God. God determines all we did, do, and will do or God allow randomness of human actions. Given the first, one can say the world with free will agent is better than a world with all human machines controlled by God. If God only creates the world in line of determinism, one can create a world better than God by allowing free will. Therefore, in other for God to be omnipotent, he should have created a world with free will agent.

In conclusion, determinism is not necessarily true when there is alternative like compatibilism which allows free will and hence moral responsibility. If determinism is true, one can create a better world with creatures who can act with free will. Hence, the idea that we have free will is not that irrational as you think it is.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. — cincPhil

The premise 1 equals if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. If so, objective moral values and duties are necessary for God’s existence. For now, I admit that they are necessary for God’s existence. Given that they are necessary, it’s still questionable how the existence of moral values and duties can entail the existence of God. In other words, their existences are not sufficient for God’s existence. There are plenty of other reasons in total which justify or are sufficient for God’s existence.

Consider the following two arguments:
Argument One
1. If my parents exist, then I exist.
2. My parents exist.
3. Therefore, I exist.
My parents’ existences here are necessary for my existence. Here, my parents’ existences are necessary but not sufficient for my existence. They had to make a decision to have me and other reasons would have to be take into account.

Argument Two
1. If my body exist, then I exist.
2. My body exists.
3. Therefore, I exist.
Here the existence of my body is necessary but not sufficient for my existence, supposed that dualism is true. The fact that my body exists cannot entails I exist, given that my body is not the only part of my personal identity.

To conclude, premise 1 is false. Therefore, the argument is not sound.

The revised version of your argument:
1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to it.
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless.
3. Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to animals.
4. If Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to something, Christians should be kind and compassionate to it.
5. Therefore, Christians should be kind and compassionate to animals.

The first problem is that premise 2 is not necessarily true. There are weak and helpless animals and also other strong or terrifying animals. Some examples in mind can be crocodiles, sharks, snakes, dinosaurs in the distant past who are strong enough to not only threaten human but also other animals’ lives. Not all animals are beings that are weak and helpless. Instead of saying animals are beings that are often weak and helpless, a better wording can be some animals are beings that are weak and helpless. ‘Often’ indicates that for all animals in total are weak and helpless for the most time and strong or terrifying for the rest little time, which allows that some strong or terrifying animals can be weak and helpless for the most time and vice versa.

The premise 4 has an irrational implication that Christians should listen to whatever Jesus told them to be kind and compassionate. What about some terrifying or life-threatening insects? To make the implication clearer, change the form of premise 4 and you will get the premise that if Christians should not be kind and compassionate to something, Jesus told Christians not to be kind and compassionate to it. This seems that Jesus’ words towards something are sufficient for Christians’ attitudes towards it. However, going back to the life-threatening insects, if those are what Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to, Christians turn out to need more information about those insects to help themselves be kind and compassionate to those insects. It’s irrational to have an attitude towards something without getting information from plenty of sources and evaluating the plausibility of each of them. Given that premise 2 and 4 are not true, the argument is not sound even though it’s valid.

Your argument seems like this:
1. If God exists before Christianity was founded, human were aware of God’s presence before Christianity was founded.
2. It’s impossible to determine that human were aware of God’s presence before Christianity was founded.
3. God does not exist before Christianity was founded. (1,2 MT)
4. If God does not exist before Christianity was founded, God only exists in conjunction with the Christian religion.
5. God only exists in conjunction with the Christian religion. (3,4 MP)

I don’t agree with P2. There two ways to argue that human were aware of God’s presence before Christianity was founded.

First, one can say existence of God is independent from any religious doctrine that defines him as a religious God. It exists without the definition given by a specific religion established by the human civilization over time. Christian God is a God defined with Christian doctrines, same with other religions. Human can be aware of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being like God. Different people had different ideas of such being and they identified themselves as the believer of certain religion because its doctrines match or is close to their ideas of such being.

Second, human were aware of some supernatural events happened in the past which they cannot understand and attribute those events to the omni-being. The existence of such being helps explain supernatural events. They only lack a general definition and name of such being.

With regard to P1, one can contend that human does not need to be aware of God’ presence before Christianity was founded if God exists before Christianity was founded. God’s existence alone is not hinge on whether human are aware of it. Something not tangible can exist without you knowing it exists. A case in point will be the knowledge that one has not learned and not even aware there is this kind of knowledge but this kind of knowledge indeed exists and may has already been aware of by others.

1. If God is made in the image of man, then God is not female.
2. If God is not female, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.
3. If God is made in the image of man, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.

There is a problem in the P1 that the consequent does not follow from the antecedent. It seems like you are saying the same as if someone A, who you don’t know, behaves and dresses up like a man, then he or she is not female. Whether God is made in the image of man or not cannot indicate God’s genuine gender if it has. The image is just how we perceive and consider God which shapes by the Bible or other religious work, and our surrounding environment, etc. What A dresses up and behaves like cannot make any difference on his or her genuine gender. Gender is an intrinsic quality which is settled the moment one was born.

Moreover, the conclusion fails to entail the view of a genderless God. Even if the argument is valid and sound, in fact it’s not, the conclusion can only prove that God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society. If the argument’s goal is to prove that God is genderless so that “people of any gender identity can have the ability to see themselves in God,” then I will say this argument is far from its end.

Another point worth mentioning is that if people of any gender identity are able to know the fact that the masculine God is just a manufactured image made to personify God so that they can understand God easily, gender will not be a problem that disables them to see themselves in God. In this way, they can think of God as female and attempt to understand God from different perspectives other than masculine and genderless. By this I mean, if people know that A being behave and dress up like man aims to self-express and help others to know him or her better, they will not have hard time imagine A as woman. Without the limit of a masculine image, people can freely see themselves in God.